Last updated: November 24, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

¹After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, ²and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows attractive and plump, and they fed in the reed grass. ³And behold, seven other cows, ugly and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. ⁴And the ugly, thin cows ate up the seven attractive, plump cows. And Pharaoh awoke. ⁵And he fell asleep and dreamed a second time. And behold, seven ears of grain, plump and good, were growing on one stalk. ⁶And behold, after them sprouted seven ears, thin and blighted by the east wind. ⁷And the thin ears swallowed up the seven plump, full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and behold, it was a dream. ⁸So in the morning his spirit was troubled, and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt and all its wise men. Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was none who could interpret them to Pharaoh.

⁹Then the chief cupbearer said to Pharaoh, “I remember my offenses today. ¹⁰When Pharaoh was angry with his servants and put me and the chief baker in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, ¹¹we dreamed on the same night, he and I, each having a dream with its own interpretation. ¹²A young Hebrew was there with us, a servant of the captain of the guard. When we told him, he interpreted our dreams to us, giving an interpretation to each man according to his dream. ¹³And as he interpreted to us, so it came about. I was restored to my office, and the baker was hanged.”

¹⁴Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they quickly brought him out of the pit. And when he had shaved himself and changed his clothes, he came in before Pharaoh. ¹⁵And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I have had a dream, and there is no one who can interpret it. I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.” ¹⁶Joseph answered Pharaoh, “It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.” ¹⁷Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Behold, in my dream I was standing on the banks of the Nile. ¹⁸Seven cows, plump and attractive, came up out of the Nile and fed in the reed grass. ¹⁹Seven other cows came up after them, poor and very ugly and thin, such as I had never seen in all the land of Egypt. ²⁰And the thin, ugly cows ate up the first seven plump cows, ²¹but when they had eaten them no one would have known that they had eaten them, for they were still as ugly as at the beginning. Then I awoke. ²²I also saw in my dream seven ears growing on one stalk, full and good. ²³Seven ears, withered, thin, and blighted by the east wind, sprouted after them, ²⁴and the thin ears swallowed up the seven good ears. And I told it to the magicians, but there was no one who could explain it to me.”

²⁵Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dreams of Pharaoh are one; God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do. ²⁶The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years; the dreams are one. ²⁷The seven lean and ugly cows that came up after them are seven years, and the seven empty ears blighted by the east wind are also seven years of famine. ²⁸It is as I told Pharaoh; God has shown to Pharaoh what he is about to do. ²⁹There will come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt, ³⁰but after them there will arise seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt. The famine will consume the land, ³¹and the plenty will be unknown in the land by reason of the famine that will follow, for it will be very severe. ³²And the doubling of Pharaoh’s dream means that the thing is fixed by God, and God will shortly bring it about. ³³Now therefore let Pharaoh select a discerning and wise man, and set him over the land of Egypt. ³⁴Let Pharaoh proceed to appoint overseers over the land and take one-fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt during the seven plentiful years. ³⁵And let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming and store up grain under the authority of Pharaoh for food in the cities, and let them keep it. ³⁶That food shall be a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine that are to occur in the land of Egypt, so that the land may not perish through the famine.”

³⁷This proposal pleased Pharaoh and all his servants. ³⁸And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?” ³⁹Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. ⁴⁰You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” ⁴¹And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” ⁴²Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. ⁴³And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. ⁴⁴Moreover, Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no one shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” ⁴⁵And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-paneah. And he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On. So Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.

⁴⁶Joseph was thirty years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt. And Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh and went through all the land of Egypt. ⁴⁷During the seven plentiful years the earth produced abundantly, ⁴⁸and he gathered up all the food of these seven years, which occurred in the land of Egypt, and put the food in the cities. He put in every city the food from the fields around it. ⁴⁹And Joseph stored up grain in great abundance, like the sand of the sea, until he ceased to measure it, for it could not be measured.

⁵⁰Before the year of famine came, two sons were born to Joseph. Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, bore them to him. ⁵¹Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father’s house.” ⁵²The name of the second he called Ephraim, “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.”

⁵³The seven years of plenty that occurred in the land of Egypt came to an end, ⁵⁴and the seven years of famine began to come, as Joseph had said. There was famine in all lands, but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. ⁵⁵When all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread. Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Joseph. What he says to you, do.”

⁵⁶So when the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land of Egypt. ⁵⁷Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

Notes

1-2 After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows attractive and plump, and they fed in the reed grass.

The Nile River was the primary source of Egypt’s economic and social stability. “The motif of seven cows is a familiar one from Egyptian paintings and texts.”¹

8 So in the morning his spirit was troubled, and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt and all its wise men. Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was none who could interpret them to Pharaoh.

It is inconceivable that the professional dream interpreters are unable to provide “interpretations.” The key phrase, therefore, is “for Pharaoh,” that is, their solutions do not satisfy him. The fact is that there is nothing in the dreams that relates in a personal way to Pharaoh himself. This, incidentally, is in contrast to all previous dreams in Genesis in which the dreamer plays a central role. It is therefore clear to Pharaoh that his dream experience has a wider, national significance. The customary fawning and flattering expositions of the magicians are therefore unconvincing.

The failure of the Egyptian professional dream interpreters has a significance that reaches far beyond the immediate story. This incident – the first clash recorded in the Bible between pagan magic and the will of God – constitutes a polemic against paganism. The same motif recurs in the contest between Moses and Aaron and the court magicians of Egypt in Exodus 7-9, in the rivalry between Daniel and the magicians in Daniel 2 and 4, and in the story of Balaam in Numbers 22-23.²

14 Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they quickly brought him out of the pit. And when he had shaved himself and changed his clothes, he came in before Pharaoh.

Egyptians preferred to be clean shaven.

32 And the doubling of Pharaoh’s dream means that the thing is fixed by God, and God will shortly bring it about.

This remark recalls the double dream that Joseph had in chapter 37 and foreshadows that those dreams will also be fulfilled.

38 And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?”

Joseph is the first person in the Bible said to be endowed with the Spirit of God.

40 You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.”

This clause [and all my people shall order themselves as you command] is much discussed. A literal translation is: “and on your mouth all my people shall kiss (you)” (we’al-pika yissaq kil-’ammi). First, let us look at some of the ancient versions. The LXX rendered yissaq with hypakousetai, which would correspond to Heb. yaqseb (Hiphil), meaning “give heed, obey.” Hence, “all my people shall be obedient to your mouth.” The Pesh. read yissapet, “shall be judged.” The Targ. rendered yissaq by the Ithpeel of zun, “be supported, managed” – “by your words all my people will be supported [or sustained, girded],” or in a secondary sense, “when you speak, all my people shall maintain silence [i.e., seal their lips, or be obedient.” Of these ancient versions, the LXX seems the most likely.

Some modern scholars have looked to the Egyptian language for clarification. One Egyptian idiom for “eat” was “to kiss one’s food.” So understood, the phrase would be read as “according to your word shall my people eat.” Others have appealed to the Egyptian idiom sn-t3, literally, “kiss the earth,” meaning “render homage.” So understood, the phrase would be read “according to your commands shall all my people kiss (the earth in submission).”

Redford avoids Egyptian analogies altogether and identifies yissaq with suq: “and in accordance with your command shall my people order themselves.” Perhaps the simplest and most convincing explanation is to emend MT yissaq to yasoq (from nasaq II, “yield, submit to”).³

42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck.

The signet ring enables Joseph to sign documents in the king’s name.

43 And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt.

The most intriguing part of this verse is the word used by the runners before the chariot (or the pharaoh) as Joseph rides over the land: Abrek (‘abrek). Three different interpretations of this term are genuine possibilities. Dahood has appealed to Eblaite ‘agarakum and its variant ‘abarakum, “superintendent.” Close to this possibility is the suggested association of Heb. ‘abrek with Akk. abarakku, “chief steward of a private or royal household.” This Akkadian word is a technical title from Neo-Assyrian texts, a strange source to explicate a hapax legomenon in the Joseph story!

The third suggestion is to turn to the Egyptian language. In the early years of this century W. Spiegelburg connected ‘abrek with Egyp. ib-r.k, “Attention! Make way for!” (reflected in NEB and JB mg.). Vergote suggested more recently a connection with Egyp. i.brk, “do homage,” that is, taking it as an imperative with prothetic i from the Semitic verb barak, “to kneel.” Spiegelberg’s suggestion is better philologically because a prothetic aleph is not characteristic of third radical verbs in Egyptian. Vergote’s suggestion is preferred contextually because it is an explicit command to do something, rather than a vague summons, “Attention!”⁴

45 And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-paneah. And he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On. So Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.

The meaning of Joseph’s new name is uncertain. Asenath means “she who belongs to (the goddess) Neith.”⁵ The priest of On (Heliopolis) held the title “Greatest of Seers.”⁶ On was the cultic center of the sun-god Re and was located about 7 miles northeast of modern Cairo.⁷

51 Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father’s house.”

Manasseh means “he who causes to forget.”⁸

52 The name of the second he called Ephraim, “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.”

Ephraim means either “fertile land” or “pasture land.”⁹

55 When all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread. Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Joseph. What he says to you, do.”

The famine and Joseph’s position will result in the meeting between Joseph and his brothers.

Bibliography

Last updated: November 21, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

¹Some time after this, the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and his baker committed an offense against their lord the king of Egypt. ²And Pharaoh was angry with his two officers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, ^3and he put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, in the prison where Joseph was confined. ⁴The captain of the guard appointed Joseph to be with them, and he attended them. They continued for some time in custody.

⁵And one night they both dreamed—the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in the prison—each his own dream, and each dream with its own interpretation. ⁶When Joseph came to them in the morning, he saw that they were troubled. ⁷So he asked Pharaoh’s officers who were with him in custody in his master’s house, “Why are your faces downcast today?” ⁸They said to him, “We have had dreams, and there is no one to interpret them.” And Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Please tell them to me.”

⁹So the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph and said to him, “In my dream there was a vine before me, ¹⁰and on the vine there were three branches. As soon as it budded, its blossoms shot forth, and the clusters ripened into grapes. ¹¹Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup and placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand.” ¹²Then Joseph said to him, “This is its interpretation: the three branches are three days. ¹³In three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your office, and you shall place Pharaoh’s cup in his hand as formerly, when you were his cupbearer. ¹⁴Only remember me, when it is well with you, and please do me the kindness to mention me to Pharaoh, and so get me out of this house. ¹⁵For I was indeed stolen out of the land of the Hebrews, and here also I have done nothing that they should put me into the pit.”

¹⁶When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was favorable, he said to Joseph, “I also had a dream: there were three cake baskets on my head, ¹⁷and in the uppermost basket there were all sorts of baked food for Pharaoh, but the birds were eating it out of the basket on my head.” ¹⁸And Joseph answered and said, “This is its interpretation: the three baskets are three days. ¹⁹In three days Pharaoh will lift up your head—from you!—and hang you on a tree. And the birds will eat the flesh from you.”

²⁰On the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, he made a feast for all his servants and lifted up the head of the chief cupbearer and the head of the chief baker among his servants. ²¹He restored the chief cupbearer to his position, and he placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand. ²²But he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph had interpreted to them. ²³Yet the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, but forgot him.

Notes

1 Some time after this, the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and his baker committed an offense against their lord the king of Egypt.

The narrative does not state how long Joseph was in prison. It does say the total period of slavery and imprisonment was thirteen years (37:2; 41:46). The two year period between the events of chapters 40 and 41 indicate that Joseph was twenty-eight years old at the end of this chapter (41:1). The exact duties of the cup bearer and baker are not clear, but they are high ranking members of court. The narrator makes it clear that, unlike Joseph, these two men actually committed an offense.

2-3 And Pharaoh was angry with his two officers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, and he put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, in the prison where Joseph was confined.

The captain of the guard may be Potiphar from chapter 39.

4 The captain of the guard appointed Joseph to be with them, and he attended them. They continued for some time in custody.

Potiphar assigns Joseph to wait on (wayesaret, v. 4) these two men. This is the same verb used back in 39:4 to describe Joseph’s relationship to Potiphar (lit., “and he [Joseph] served him [Potiphar]”). According to some scholars, here is one valid criterion for separating ch. 39 (J) from ch. 40 (E). In 39:19-23 Joseph is in prison, but he is given by the chief jailer authority over the other prisoners. By contrast, in ch. 40 he has no authority over any prisoners; in fact, he is a servant to two of them. This is a misreading of the text. Nowhere does ch. 40 disagree with ch. 39. Joseph still maintains a position of authority in prison. When, however, the chief cupbearer and baker enter the scene, his responsibility is expanded to include meeting the needs and waiting upon these new coprisoners, both of whom had earlier been responsible for putting wine (the cupbearer) and bread (the baker) on Pharaoh’s table. What he did for Potiphar, and may continue to do for Potiphar, he now does for the cupbearer and baker. Certainly Joseph’s responsibilities to Potiphar included anything but menial, tedious, chorelike activities. The same would be true of his responsibilities to these two. Furthermore, 40:3b, 15 clearly state that Joseph was in prison, exactly in accord with 39:19-23.¹

5 And one night they both dreamed—the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in the prison—each his own dream, and each dream with its own interpretation.

Since they were imprisoned, the men may have been looking for any sign as to what their fate would be.

8 They said to him, “We have had dreams, and there is no one to interpret them.” And Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Please tell them to me.”

The two men were distraught because they did not have access to a professional interpreter of dreams. Joseph’s response implies that he did not consider the interpretation of dreams to be an art that humans could learn. Rather, he believed that dreams could only be interpreted if God gave a person that ability.

16-17 When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was favorable, he said to Joseph, “I also had a dream: there were three cake baskets on my head, and in the uppermost basket there were all sorts of baked food for Pharaoh, but the birds were eating it out of the basket on my head.”

The dream corresponded in several ways with the cupbearer’s. Both have threes – three branches and three baskets; both dreams pertain to their respective occupations; and in both dreams the cupbearer and baker appear. The differences are significant too. In the baker’s dream Pharaoh is not seen, the baker is not performing his duty, and there is nothing in the former dream corresponding to the birds of prey. The baker is totally passive. The vision of three baskets balancing on the baker’s head paints an unusual sight and was perhaps comical to some readers. The term “baskets” (sallim) is associated with baked goods (e.g. Exod 29:2-3), though not always (Judg 6:19). The prolific number and variety of the items (“all kinds of baked goods”) reflect what we know of Egyptian cuisine. From the top basket birds were feasting on the food designated for Pharaoh. The word for “bird” (‘op) is the general term, referring to clean and unclean species (e.g., Lev 20:25), but it may describe birds that feed off carcasses (e.g., Deut 28:26). Carnivorous birds dining on fallen corpses is a common prophetic image of God’s judgment against the wicked (e.g., Jer 34:20; Ezek 39:17-20; Rev 19:17-18). The baker’s vision of birds picking at the food brings to mind the disquieting episode of Abraham (‘ayit, “birds of prey,” 15:11). Since Pharaoh did not receive the baked goods prepared by the baker, unlike the dream of the cupbearer, the picture conveyed impending doom. Unlike Abraham, who in his vision dispersed the scavengers (15:11), the baker failed in his duty by leaving the food unguarded (e.g., 2 Sam 21:10; Jer 7:33).²

18-19 And Joseph answered and said, “This is its interpretation: the three baskets are three days. In three days Pharaoh will lift up your head—from you!—and hang you on a tree. And the birds will eat the flesh from you.”

What Joseph is predicting is an aggravated form of death penalty, execution followed by exposure (cf. Deut 21:22-23; Josh 10:26). The baker will not simply be executed, but his corpse will be impaled and exposed. This treatment was designed to prevent his spirit from resting in the afterlife.³

23 Yet the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, but forgot him.

Joseph will stay in prison for another two years (41:1).

Bibliography

Last updated: November 19, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

¹Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, had bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there. ²The LORD was with Joseph, and he became a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master. ³His master saw that the LORD was with him and that the LORD caused all that he did to succeed in his hands. ⁴So Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him, and he made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had. ⁵From the time that he made him overseer in his house and over all that he had the LORD blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; the blessing of the LORD was on all that he had, in house and field. ⁶So he left all that he had in Joseph’s charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything but the food he ate.

Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. ⁷And after a time his master’s wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.” ⁸But he refused and said to his master’s wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. ⁹He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” ¹⁰And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her.

¹¹But one day, when he went into the house to do his work and none of the men of the house was there in the house, ¹²she caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me.” But he left his garment in her hand and fled and got out of the house. ¹³And as soon as she saw that he had left his garment in her hand and had fled out of the house, ¹⁴she called to the men of her household and said to them, “See, he has brought among us a Hebrew to laugh at us. He came in to me to lie with me, and I cried out with a loud voice. ¹⁵And as soon as he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried out, he left his garment beside me and fled and got out of the house.” ¹⁶Then she laid up his garment by her until his master came home, ¹⁷and she told him the same story, saying, “The Hebrew servant, whom you have brought among us, came in to me to laugh at me. ¹⁸But as soon as I lifted up my voice and cried, he left his garment beside me and fled out of the house.”

¹⁹As soon as his master heard the words that his wife spoke to him, “This is the way your servant treated me,” his anger was kindled. ²⁰And Joseph’s master took him and put him into the prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined, and he was there in prison. ²¹But the LORD was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. ²²And the keeper of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners who were in the prison. Whatever was done there, he was the one who did it. ²³The keeper of the prison paid no attention to anything that was in Joseph’s charge, because the LORD was with him. And whatever he did, the LORD made it succeed.

Notes

1 Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, had bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there.

The prophecy to Abraham in 15:13, that his offspring will be afflicted servants in a foreign land, is beginning to be fulfilled.

2 The LORD was with Joseph, and he became a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master.

This passage stresses that God was with Joseph to provide coherence and meaning to what may, at first, appear to be a series of random events. The divine presence allows Joseph to persevere in situations where many men would have been driven to despair.

7 And after a time his master’s wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.”

“After a time” Joseph’s relative independence and authority was accepted as commonplace in the household. She can speak brazenly due to Joseph’s status as a slave.

8-9 But he refused and said to his master’s wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?”

Joseph’s spontaneous response is a categorical no. His moral excellence can be appreciated all the more if one remembers that he is a slave and that sexual promiscuity was a perennial feature of all slave societies. Moreover, an ambitious person might well have considered that the importuning woman had presented him with a rare opportunity to advance his personal and selfish interests.

Conscious of his subordinate position, Joseph dares not display anger. Nor does he preach. He only explains his personal reasons for refusing her advances, and he presents these in an order that reflects his perception of her hierarchy of values. First he points to the abuse of trust that would be involved, then to the violation of the husband’s proprietary rights over his wife, then to the religious and moral nature of the offense. The second of these reasons reflects pagan legal theory that adultery was largely a private injury, an affront and indignity to the husband. The third line of argument conforms to the distinctive Israelite concept of morality as having its source and sanction in divine will, not in social convention or utilitarian considerations.¹

10 And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her.

Joseph tries to stay clear of temptation.

13-15 And as soon as she saw that he had left his garment in her hand and had fled out of the house, she called to the men of her household and said to them, “See, he has brought among us a Hebrew to laugh at us. He came in to me to lie with me, and I cried out with a loud voice. And as soon as he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried out, he left his garment beside me and fled and got out of the house.”

The master’s wife may have been afraid that the true story would get out and so acted quickly by telling the men of the household a lie to cover up her misdeeds. The scream was intended as a sign that she had resisted Joseph’s advances. She knew no one was close enough to actually confirm that part of her story. She subtly avoids mentioning that the garment was in her hand (vv 12, 13) and instead says he left the garment behind (v 15, 18).

20 And Joseph’s master took him and put him into the prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined, and he was there in prison.

The prison was on the master’s property (40:3, 7; 41:10). That Joseph was placed where the king’s prisoners were confined sets the stage for the next episode. It is not clear why Joseph was not executed for his alleged crime.

Bibliography

Last updated: November 13, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

¹It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. ²There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua. He took her and went in to her, ³and she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. ⁴She conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. ⁵Yet again she bore a son, and she called his name Shelah. Judah was in Chezib when she bore him.

⁶And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. ⁷But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. ⁸Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” ⁹But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. ¹⁰And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also. ¹¹Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father’s house, till Shelah my son grows up”—for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and remained in her father’s house.

¹²In the course of time the wife of Judah, Shua’s daughter, died. When Judah was comforted, he went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. ¹³And when Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep,” ¹⁴she took off her widow’s garments and covered herself with a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage. ¹⁵When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. ¹⁶He turned to her at the roadside and said, “Come, let me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?” ¹⁷He answered, “I will send you a young goat from the flock.” And she said, “If you give me a pledge, until you send it—” ¹⁸He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” She replied, “Your signet and your cord and your staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her and went in to her, and she conceived by him. ¹⁹Then she arose and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood.

²⁰When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite to take back the pledge from the woman’s hand, he did not find her. ²¹And he asked the men of the place, “Where is the cult prostitute who was at Enaim at the roadside?” And they said, “No cult prostitute has been here.” ²²So he returned to Judah and said, “I have not found her. Also, the men of the place said, ‘No cult prostitute has been here.’” ²³And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things as her own, or we shall be laughed at. You see, I sent this young goat, and you did not find her.”

²⁴About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.” ²⁵As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am pregnant.” And she said, “Please identify whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.” ²⁶Then Judah identified them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not know her again.

²⁷When the time of her labor came, there were twins in her womb. ²⁸And when she was in labor, one put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, “This one came out first.” ²⁹But as he drew back his hand, behold, his brother came out. And she said, “What a breach you have made for yourself!” Therefore his name was called Perez. ³⁰Afterward his brother came out with the scarlet thread on his hand, and his name was called Zerah.

Notes

1 It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.

We should notice immediately that this account creates a problem chronologically. According to the time span in the Joseph sequence, Joseph is sold when he is seventeen (37:2), is elevated when he is thirty (41:46), and is thirty-nine when Jacob and the family move to Egypt (45:6). This gives a space of twenty-two years. In that same time span, Judah leaves the family, finds a wife and marries her, and has three children by her. These sons grow up, and the oldest gets married. When he dies, his widow marries the second and he dies. After a time, Tamar gets pregnant by Judah and has twins. They grow up, get married, and have children, two of whom are in the group that goes down to Egypt (46:12). This requires two generations to be born, grow up, and have children of their own. Even if we assume that the males become fathers at the tender age of fifteen, this sequence would take at least thirty-five years – and that does not take account of the “after a long time” in 38:12.

U. Cassuto addresses this problem in detail and begins with several acute observations. First he notes that not all of the names given in the list in Genesis 46 go down to Egypt – notably, Judah’s sons Er and Onan (who have died, 46:12), and Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who are born in Egypt (46:20). Cassuto contends that the sons of Perez, Hezron and Hamul (46:12), should be included in that number. He constructs a case that they have not actually been born yet when the journey is made to Egypt but are included in Genesis 46 because they eventually take the place of Er and Onan through the levirate laws. This helps resolve the tension that now only one generation has to be born, grow up, and have children in the course of Genesis 38.

According to Cassuto’s calculations, if Judah left, married, and had sons in short order, his family could be in place by the time Joseph is twenty or twenty-one. If Er was married when he was eighteen, Joseph would be thirty-six, and the time of plenty would be in its sixth year. If Er and Onan both die in their first year of marriage and Tamar waits for one additional year for Shelah, we reach the first year of famine. It is perhaps at this juncture that the brothers make their first trip to Egypt. Then Tamar’s masquerade, her pregnancy, and the birth of the twins can come between the two trips. Consequently, this narrative is reaching its climax just as the Joseph story also reaches the climax of Joseph’s revealing himself to his brothers.¹

Adullam is usually identified with Tell esh-Sheikh Madkhur in the Judean foothills northwest of Hebron (1 Samuel 22:1; Micah 1:15).²

5 Yet again she bore a son, and she called his name Shelah. Judah was in Chezib when she bore him.

Chezib is the same as Akzib (Joshua 15:44; Micah 1:14), three miles west of Adullam and a place later settled by members of the Shelanite clan (1 Chronicles 4:21-22).³

7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death.

In Hebrew, the word translated “wicked” is the name “Er” spelled backwards, thus creating a wordplay.⁴ Er’s sin is not stated but the verse makes it clear the he deserved to die.

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”

In the ancient Near East, the levirate marriage laws required that if a woman’s husband died without offspring his brother should bear a child by her in order to continue the dead brother’s line.

9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.

What Onan did, or refused to do, was so serious a breach of duty that it cost him his life. His action of wasting his semen is compounded by a series of sins. First, Onan refused to carry out his levirate responsibilities. The method he used to evade these responsibilities is wasting his seed. Second, he persistently failed to expedite these responsibilities. V. 9 does not isolate one incident by Onan, but refers to repeated offenses by him. The syntax of v. 9 does not refer to one time “when” Onan had sex with Tamar, but to whenever he had sex with her. Third, Onan put his own interests ahead of Tamar and Tamar’s future child. Num. 27:8-11 states that if a man dies without a son, then his inheritance is to pass to his daughter; if he has no daughter, then the inheritance is to pass to his brothers. Onan apparently does not want to father a son who will prevent him from receiving his deceased brother’s inheritance. Fourth, what makes Onan’s sin so offensive is that he appears to undertake his responsibility, but he fakes it. He does not say, “No, I will not have sex with my sister-in-law.” Tamar does not remove Onan’s shoe and expectorate in his face. Onan does sleep with Tamar, begins intercourse, but then withdraws. Such subterfuge does not escape Yahweh’s notice.⁵

11 Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father’s house, till Shelah my son grows up”—for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and remained in her father’s house.

When Judah directs Tamar to live as a “widow,” he is speaking of her chastity, for without a male protector (husband, son, brother, father-in-law) she had no automatic provision of a sexual partner in the family guaranteeing her a husband and eventually a child. By returning to her “father’s house,” Judah suspends his immediate supervision of Tamar, leaving it again to her father and male relatives to protect and provide (e.g., Lev 22:13; cf. as a brother, Absalom’s care of Tamar, 2 Sam 13:20). But by living as a widow she cannot go outside the bounds of Judah’s family to marry unless he releases her. If released she may seek out another husband or pursue a profession. If not, she must await the next eligible male, Shelah. Thus Judah’s directive, coupled with his refusal to yield Shelah, meant a life-long barrenness. She evidently remained under his watch care since Judah exercised authority over her fate after the discovery of her pregnancy.⁶

12 In the course of time the wife of Judah, Shua’s daughter, died. When Judah was comforted, he went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

Tamar bides her time until Judah’s wife is dead. For one thing she has no interest in ruining and defaming the marriage of her in-laws. For another thing, she knows that Judah is more sexually vulnerable now that he is a widower.⁷

“Sheeping-shearing” was a lively festival (cf. 1 Sam 25:2-37; 2 Sam 13:23-28), when wine was freely consumed. If Judah was already under the influence, it might help to explain why he did not penetrate Tamar’s disguise. “Timna” is a village in the Shephelah on the border of the tribes of Judah and Dan (Josh 15:10), the scene of Samson’s exploits (Judg 14:1-5). Z. Kallai identifies it with Tel el Batashi about four miles west-northwest of Beth-Shemesh. Some commentators hold that another Timnah in the southern part of the tribal territory of Judah (Josh 15:57) is meant, but this does not fit so well with the location of Enayim, here described as on the road to Timnah (38:14), which is in the northern part of Judah’s territory (Josh 15:34).⁸

15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face.

Most translations understand v. 15b as causal: “Judah assumed she was a whore, since [so JB, NAB; cf. AV “because”; RSV, NIV “for”] she had veiled her face.” But there is little evidence that prostitutes in Canaan wore veils. Two references, Hos. 2:4 (Eng. 2) and Cant. 1:7, might support this idea. In the first text, Hosea’s wife Gomer is exhorted “to remove her harlotry (or promiscuity, zenuneyha) from her face.” This is more likely a reference to makeup rather than to veils. We do know that prostitutes painted their faces, especially around the eyes (Jer. 4:30; Ezek. 23:40). The second text is Cant. 1:7, which M. Pope translates: “Tell me, my true love, Where do you pasture? Where do you fold at noon? Lest I be as one veiled [keoteya] Among your comrades’ flocks.” Pope suggests that the beloved in the Song is concerned that she will appear to be a (veiled) prostitute, if she has to wander around looking for her beloved. This is not, however, the only possible interpretation of Cant. 1:7. For example, the veil might be a sign of mourning (e.g., 2 Sam. 15:30), not harlotry. Several ancient versions (Pesh., Vulg., Symm.) suggest the reading “Lest I be a wanderer” (reading ketoim, i.e., transposing the ‘ and t). The NEB reads “lest I be left off picking lice”!⁹

I propose that Tamar’s wearing of the veil was not to make Judah think she was a prostitute. Rather it was intended to prevent him from recognizing her. It is not the veil but Tamar’s positioning herself at Enaim (v. 14) that made her appear to be a prostitute.¹⁰

18 He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” She replied, “Your signet and your cord and your staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her and went in to her, and she conceived by him.

The seal was used to identify personal possessions and for sealing and legitimating clay documents. A cord passed through it so that it could be worn around the neck. The staff may have been a walking stick or a symbol of authority in his clan. All these objects were important symbols of Judah’s identity.

20 When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite to take back the pledge from the woman’s hand, he did not find her.

Presumably the Adullamite friend is Hirah (vv 1, 12).

21 And he asked the men of the place, “Where is the cult prostitute who was at Enaim at the roadside?” And they said, “No cult prostitute has been here.”

In asking the townsmen about Tamar’s whereabouts, Hirah does not say: “Where is the prostitute [zona]?” Instead, he asks: Where is the cult prostitute [qedesa]? They respond that there never has been a qedesa in their locality. Why does Gen. 38 refer to Tamar by two words, prostitute (v. 15) and cult prostitute? The purpose is certainly not to elevate Judah’s behavior from sleeping with a street prostitute to engaging in ritual fornication with a woman (“a holy one”) who is a temple servant and devotee. Note that the narrator reports that Judah thought she was a prostitute (v. 15), but when he relates the conversation of Canaanites with each other (v. 21), he puts in their mouths the designation “cult prostitute.” In other words, what the narrator called a “prostitute” was in the local idiom a “cult prostitute.” Vv. 21-22 are told, then, from the point of view of Hirah and the Enaimites. Furthermore, a passage like Duet. 23:18-19 (Eng. 17-18), which collocates qedesa and zona, suggests that the terms are related but not necessarily synonymous. The two terms are also parallel in Hos. 4:14.

It is unlikely that Hirah would suppose that the woman who made herself available nowhere near any temple was a cult prostitute. Thus it is dubious that Tamar ever intended to pass herself off as anything more than a prostitute. There would certainly be no reason to laugh at a person (see Judah’s concern in v. 23 about being ridiculed) who had engaged in sexual congress with a hierodule of the Canaanite cult. In order to be as polite as possible to the townspeople, Hirah used a euphemism. In private or plain speech Tamar is a prostitute. In public or polite speech Tamar is a “cult prostitute.”¹¹

23 And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things as her own, or we shall be laughed at. You see, I sent this young goat, and you did not find her.”

Judah would rather leave the pledged items with Tamar than conduct an all-out search for them. At this point their recovery would be more of a loss than a gain. It is clear that Judah’s main concern is that he not become the butt of jokes, a laughingstock (labuz) because a street prostitute has outwitted him and taken advantage of him. buz usually connotes something like “scorn, shame, contempt,” but here it means “a laughingstock.” Judah’s continued search among the townsmen for “the prostitute” and the pledged items she holds would only broadcast how she had tricked him. It is not wise to advertise one’s follies. Judah is also concerned that Hirah know that Judah is not trying to get something for nothing (v. 23c). He feels constrained to remind Hirah that he did send him with payment to the woman.¹²

24 About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.”

Tamar was in effect betrothed to Shelah and therefore should not have had intercourse with anyone else. Her pregnancy suggests to Judah that she is guilty of adultery.

25 As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am pregnant.” And she said, “Please identify whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.”

The most obvious parallel between the stories of Tamar and Joseph is found in 38:25-26, “’Please identify this ring’ . . . Judah identified them,” which precisely echoes 37:32-33, “’Please identify whether it is your son’s tunic or not.’ He identified it.” Just as in the episode of Joseph’s tunic, an element of divine justice is apparent. Jacob had deceived his father Isaac. He in turn was deceived by his son Judah, and now Judah himself is deceived by his daughter-in-law. In all three episodes, goats and items of dress are used in the deception.¹³

26 Then Judah identified them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not know her again.

Judah’s remark did not mean necessarily that her action was approved; rather, Judah acknowledged that her motivation was consistent with the purpose of levirate marriage, whereas Judah had attempted to circumvent the custom.¹⁴

27 When the time of her labor came, there were twins in her womb.

These twins recall the twins Jacob and Esau. In both cases the twins compete for who will be born first.

28 And when she was in labor, one put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, “This one came out first.”

The thread was to mark who was the firstborn, in this case Zerah. Apparently the midwife knew twins were expected or there would be no need for the thread.

29 But as he drew back his hand, behold, his brother came out. And she said, “What a breach you have made for yourself!” Therefore his name was called Perez.

Perez means “break through.”¹⁵ It is noteworthy that he is the ancestor of David and Jesus.

30 Afterward his brother came out with the scarlet thread on his hand, and his name was called Zerah.

Zerah means “shining, brightness.”¹⁶

Bibliography

Last updated: November 11, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

1Jacob lived in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Canaan.

2These are the generations of Jacob.

Joseph, being seventeen years old, was pasturing the flock with his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought a bad report of them to their father. 3Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his sons, because he was the son of his old age. And he made him a robe of many colors. 4But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peacefully to him.

5Now Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers they hated him even more. 6He said to them, “Hear this dream that I have dreamed: 7Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and stood upright. And behold, your sheaves gathered around it and bowed down to my sheaf.” 8His brothers said to him, “Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us?” So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.

9Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” 10But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?” 11And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in mind.

12Now his brothers went to pasture their father’s flock near Shechem. 13And Israel said to Joseph, “Are not your brothers pasturing the flock at Shechem? Come, I will send you to them.” And he said to him, “Here I am.” 14So he said to him, “Go now, see if it is well with your brothers and with the flock, and bring me word.” So he sent him from the Valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem. 15And a man found him wandering in the fields. And the man asked him, “What are you seeking?” 16″I am seeking my brothers,” he said. “Tell me, please, where they are pasturing the flock.” 17And the man said, “They have gone away, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan.

18They saw him from afar, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him. 19They said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer. 20Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits. Then we will say that a fierce animal has devoured him, and we will see what will become of his dreams.” 21But when Reuben heard it, he rescued him out of their hands, saying, “Let us not take his life.” 22And Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood; throw him into this pit here in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him”— that he might rescue him out of their hand to restore him to his father. 23So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the robe of many colors that he wore. 24And they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.

25Then they sat down to eat. And looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. 26Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? 27Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers listened to him. 28Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt.

29When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he tore his clothes 30and returned to his brothers and said, “The boy is gone, and I, where shall I go?” 31Then they took Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, “This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not.” 33And he identified it and said, “It is my son’s robe. A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces.” 34Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. 35All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, “No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Thus his father wept for him. 36Meanwhile the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard.

Notes

1 Jacob lived in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Canaan.

[A]ccording to the Genesis chronologies, Isaac was still alive when the events in this chapter took place. This may be calculated as follows: to the 13 years Joseph spent in slavery must be added the 7 years of plenty and the 2 years of famine that elapsed before Jacob’s migration. To these 22 years must then be added the 17 Jacob spent in Egypt before he died, at age 147. If one deducts the resultant 39 years from the 147, Jacob would have been 108 when Joseph was sold by his brothers. Since Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born, and died at 180, Jacob must have been 120 at the time of Isaac’s death. Hence, Isaac lived on another 12 years after the sale of Joseph.¹

2 These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was pasturing the flock with his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought a bad report of them to their father.

One might understand brothers as just the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, but more likely it includes all his brothers. Neither Bilhah’s sons (Dan and Naphtali) nor Zilpah’s sons (Gad and Asher) figures prominently in the Joseph story, but they are Joseph’s colaborers. The syntax of the Hebrew allows for the translation “Joseph was shepherding his brothers,” if ‘et is understood as the sign of the accusative rather than as the preposition “with.” So understood, this verse would provide an excellent introduction to the Joseph story in the form of anticipatory paranomasia. What Joseph is doing during his teen life is exactly what he will be doing in his adult life – caring and providing for those who are dependent on him. But in what sense might a younger brother shepherd his older half-brothers? In several instances raa ‘et means “to rule over.” For example, in 2 Sam. 5:2 (par. 1 Chr. 11:2), “you will shepherd my people Israel,” raa ‘et clearly means “rule.” The same nuance for raa ‘et appears in 2 Sam. 7:7 (par. 1 Chr. 17:6), “whom I appointed to shepherd my people Israel.” Note that later (v. 8) Joseph’s brothers wondered aloud if Joseph intended to rule over them (malak) and be master over them (masal).²

That Bilhah and Zilpah are here called “wives” may indicate that they acquired a new status after the deaths of Rachel and Leah. The bad report, the nature of which is not specified, is the first of a number of causes of enmity between Joseph and his brothers.

3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his sons, because he was the son of his old age. And he made him a robe of many colors.

The precise meaning of Hebrew ketonet passim remains unclear. In 2 Samuel 13:18-19 the garment is mentioned as the distinctive dress of virgin daughters of royalty. Josephus describes it as “a long-sleeved tunic reaching the ankle.” In Aramaic and rabbinic Hebrew pas means the palm of the hand and the sole of the foot. Radak took passim to mean “striped.” The Septuagint and Vulgate rendered the Hebrew “a robe of many colors.”

Ancient Near Eastern art may shed some light on the subject. An Egyptian tomb painting at Beni-hasan from about 1890 B.C.E. features a Semitic clan with the men and women wearing multicolored tunics draped over one shoulder and reaching below the knees. Another Egyptian tomb has a representation of Syrian ambassadors bringing tribute to Tutankhamen. They are dressed in elaborately designed long robes wrapped around the body and over the shoulders. A mural fresco in the palace of King Zimri-lim at Mari, in southeast, Syria, shows figures dressed in garments made of many small rectangular panels of multicolored cloth. The discovery of a “pas garment” (lbs psm) in a list of various articles of clothing from the town of Ugarit, dated not later than the thirteenth century B.C.E., provides a parallel to the biblical phrase but little clarification.

It may well be that the tunic was a sign of high social standing. It plays a key role in the narrative both because of the jealousy it aroused and because it was the only means by which Jacob could have been convinced that Joseph had been killed (vv. 31ff.).³

4 But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peacefully to him.

The text explains that it was the special coat that particularly angered them, taking it as proof of their father’s special love (v. 4). That the passage says they “hated” (sane’) Joseph is another reminder of the competition between his wives; the Hebrew term describes Leah as “unloved” (sane’, 29:31, 33), which, however, prompted the divine bestowal of her children, much to the affliction of Rachel. Their intense dislike produced only contemptuous words for him; Jacob’s household was tumultuous, absent common courtesy (“kind,” “peaceably,” salom).⁴

5 Now Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers they hated him even more.

The third and most menacing source of discord was Joseph’s dreams. This situation is easily understood when we view it against the cultural background of the times. Everywhere the dream was recognized as a means of divine communication. In the dreams previously described in Genesis, the revelation is straightforward and the message is conveyed verbally. In the case of Joseph’s dreams, however, the language of communication is symbolic. God does not figure explicitly in the content of the dream; yet it is taken for granted that He is the source of the message being conveyed. The predictive aspect of dreams was universally assumed in the ancient world, and this was reason enough for the brothers to take Joseph seriously. However, since the dream was also recognized to be inseparable from the personality of the dreamer, reflecting his own needs and wishes, Joseph bore, in the eyes of his brothers, a measure of responsibility for his highly egocentric vision of superiority and lordship. Joseph’s aspirations raised such hostility in his brothers as to inspire a conspiracy to murder (vv. 19-20).⁵

The twicefold reference to Joseph’s “dream” and the comment “they hated him all the more” form the boundaries of this unit (vv. 5, 8). The expression “more” (wayyosipu) renders the verb “to add to,” a probable play on Joseph’s (yosep) name (cf. comments on 30:24). Whereas Rachel hoped Joseph’s birth would portend an added son (i.e., Benjamin), for the brothers his dream only added to their disgust.⁶

6-7 He said to them, “Hear this dream that I have dreamed: Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and stood upright. And behold, your sheaves gathered around it and bowed down to my sheaf.”

The Mari documents note that pastoralists were employed during the harvest.⁷ The agricultural motif foreshadows the circumstances that will allow Joseph to rise to power (ch. 41).

8 His brothers said to him, “Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us?” So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.

The meaning of the dream is obvious to his brothers. The plural “dreams” either anticipates the second dream or implies that Joseph had told his brothers about other dreams in the past. The “words” may refer to his bad report about his brothers (v 2).

9 Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

Throughout the Joseph narratives, dreams come in pairs in order to demonstrate their seriousness, as noted in 41:32. The possibility of an idle dream was recognized by the ancients. From the literature of the ancient Near East we have accounts of double, triple, and even sevenfold repetition of dreams in which one symbol is successively substituted for another, although the basic meaning and central theme remain the same throughout the series.⁸

Unlike the first dream, this dream includes his parents. Recall the promises that the Israelites would become as numerous the stars (15:5; 22:17; 26:4).

10 But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?”

Joseph again tells the second dream, this time in the presence of both his father and his brothers (v 9 mentions only his brothers). Jacob’s rebuke may have been meant to curb Joseph’s apparent sense of self-importance. The reference to Joseph’s “mother” must refer to his stepmother Bilhah. Some commentators think the reference suggests this passage assumes Rachel is still alive. However, since Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin (35:19) and this passage mentions eleven sons, this is not a necessary interpretation.

11 And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in mind.

In context, this seems to be a stronger and deeper passion than “hatred” (vv 5, 8). Indeed, in various passages it is a feeling that is liable to spill over into violent action (e.g., Num 25:11, 13), even with God (Exod 20:5). The ritual in Num 5:11-31 is designed to prevent a husband physically punishing his wife for suspected adultery, and Proverbs cautions against allowing such jealousy free reign (14:30; 23:17; 24:1, 19). So the note that “his brothers were very jealous” is ominous, suggesting that they may well seek revenge.⁹

12 Now his brothers went to pasture their father’s flock near Shechem.

Since Shechem was the site of Simeon and Levi’s murder of the Hivites (34:25-31), it is surprising that the brothers would return to its pastures. This suggests that the times were peaceful toward their neighbors or an early indicator of the famine to come since the brothers appear to go afar in search of sufficient grazing.¹⁰

13 And Israel said to Joseph, “Are not your brothers pasturing the flock at Shechem? Come, I will send you to them.” And he said to him, “Here I am.”

In view of the relationship between Joseph and his brothers, Jacob’s action is surprising and Joseph’s ready response no less so. Clearly, the brothers had hitherto successfully disguised their true feelings and, indeed, there is no record of their having uttered any threats against Joseph. Shechem had been the site of a bloody massacre carried out by the brothers, who had apparently captured the city (chap. 34). This incident must have occurred very recently since Dinah was about the same age as Joseph (30:21-24) and could hardly have been younger than about fifteen at the time. Joseph is now seventeen (v. 2). The danger inherent in the brothers’ presence in the vicinity of Shechem (cf. 34:30) may have been the source of Jacob’s anxiety.¹¹

14 So he said to him, “Go now, see if it is well with your brothers and with the flock, and bring me word.” So he sent him from the Valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.

Hebron itself was located on a hill. The Valley of Hebron, mentioned only here, may refer to the area around the cave of Machpelah, where Abraham was buried. Shechem was about 50 miles away from Hebron. It must have taken Joseph about five days to make the journey.

15-17 And a man found him wandering in the fields. And the man asked him, “What are you seeking?” “I am seeking my brothers,” he said. “Tell me, please, where they are pasturing the flock.” And the man said, “They have gone away, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan.

The two occasions of the word “found” (from masa’) mark the boundaries of this episode (vv. 15, 17). The “man” found Joseph and enabled Joseph in turn to find his brothers. Joseph roamed about, obviously befuddled by the absence of the brothers, but the “man” intervened. The picture of the roaming Joseph reinforces the young man’s vulnerability and naivety. Fortunately, a “man” rescued him from his bewilderment. The unidentified “man” who informed Joseph that his brothers had moved on to Dothan reminds the reader of the “man” Jacob had wrestled (32:24-32). Jewish tradition considered him an angel in the form of a man. For Calvin the inclusion of the “man” episode was to depict the diligence of Joseph in carrying out his duty and concomitantly reveals the heinous atrocity of the brothers’ crime. The word order in Joseph’s response, lit., “my brothers I’m seeking” (v. 16), making familial relationship paramount in his thinking, reinforces the trust that he presumes and the brothers transgressed. Since the “man” intercepted Joseph, overheard the private conversation of the brothers, and correctly directed Joseph to discover his brothers at Dothan, the passage conveys the theological orientation of the narrative as a whole. Whether the “man” is an angel or a human, the unseen hand of the Lord is apparent here. He is directing Joseph to discover his brothers so that the divine plan for the salvation of Jacob and many peoples (50:20) might be realized, although it meant a troubling time for the house of Jacob. Where are Joseph’s custodial angels who like his father’s might save him from his brothers, as they did with Jacob and Esau (32:1-2 [2-3])? Luther answered, “In such danger we see the deepest silence of God and the angels . . . But behold how much good God draws forth from this.”¹²

Dothan was about 14 miles northwest of Shechem.

18 They saw him from afar, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him.

The brothers are far from their father’s restraining presence. The robe of many colors would have only helped the brothers recognize Joseph from a distance.

19-20 They said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer. Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits. Then we will say that a fierce animal has devoured him, and we will see what will become of his dreams.”

[The pits] would be cisterns hewn out of rock intended for gathering and storing water in the rainy season. Large numbers of such cisterns have been found in excavations all over the Land of Israel. They vary in depth from six to as much as twenty-four feet. Dried out cisterns were occasionally used as temporary places of detention. Murderers seem to have deliberately slaughtered their victims near such pits in order to dispose of the corpses there. One has only to bear in mind that lack of proper burial was considered to be the supreme dishonor in order to imagine something of the frenzied intensity of the brothers’ hatred for Joseph. His wearing of the special tunic at the time probably was an added provocation.¹³

Ironically the action the brothers take allows Joseph’s dreams to come true.

21 But when Reuben heard it, he rescued him out of their hands, saying, “Let us not take his life.”

On an earlier occasion [Reuben] had impetuously asserted his rights as the first-born by taking his father’s concubine (35:22); now he desperately asserts the authority that belongs to that status. His being under a cloud sharpened his sensitivity to the fact that he would surely bear the main share of blame for any misfortune. Perhaps he also hoped to regain his father’s favor. There is no need, however, to question Reuben’s sincerity. Still troubled by his failure to save Joseph (42:22), he is willing to go to extreme lengths in order to convince his father to let him be the protector of Benjamin (42:37).¹⁴

22 And Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood; throw him into this pit here in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him”— that he might rescue him out of their hand to restore him to his father.

The other brothers would assume that Joseph would die of starvation or exposure.

Cisterns were shaped like a bottle, with a little opening in the top, and often covered with a stone. They were hewn deep in the rock, and the narrow vertical shaft near the top was for letting down pitchers. In most cases they would be waterproofed with plaster made from burnt and slaked lime. Joseph’s chances of escaping from a cistern are minimal.¹⁵

Note that Reuben tells his brothers to place Joseph in a pit “in the wilderness.” “On the one hand, this locale may appeal to the brothers in that any calls for help by Joseph would go unheeded. On the other hand, Reuben can successfully retrieve Joseph from a cistern that is far enough away from the watchful eyes of his brothers.”¹⁶

24 And they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.

Later, we learn that Joseph was not silent when he was thrown into the pit (42:21). Since such pits were usually for water storage, the narrator notes that this pit had no water in it. This means Joseph may die of thirst but not drown. “The dry pit may be an indicator also that water was scarce and famine loomed on the horizon.”¹⁷

25 Then they sat down to eat. And looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt.

The brothers callously eat a meal as their brother is nearby in the pit. Gilead is the central mountainous region east of the Jordan. “The caravaneers would have traveled from Gilead by way of the Valley of Beth-Shean (Beisan). The road southward passed by Dothan and then returned westward to link up with the route to Egypt.”¹⁸ “There is ample Egyptian evidence that the slave trade with Egypt from locations in Asia was a brisk one in the time of Joseph.”¹⁹

26-27 Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers listened to him.

It is not clear whether Judah’s suggestion is a desperate attempt to save Joseph’s life or an attempt to make a profit.

28 Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt.

It is widely assumed that this section of Gen. 37 presents the clearest evidence for a conflation of two accounts of the Joseph story. Scholars use three points to substantiate that position. First, here Judah is Joseph’s mediator (vv. 26-27, J), rather than Reuben (vv. 21-22, E). Second, the text shifts back and forth on who actually took Joseph – Midianites (E) or Ishmaelites (J). Third, if the verses under consideration are from one source, then Reuben heard Judah’s proposal to sell Joseph and was present when Joseph was actually sold. Why, then, is he shocked (vv. 29-30) when he returns to find the well empty? These three observations have led to the conclusion that in 37:25ff. we have the following two strands: J, vv. 25-27, 28b; E. vv. 28a, 29-30. This breakdown explains, so it is assumed, all the inconsistencies within the text of 37:25-30.

Let us examine another possibility that does not follow the J-E analysis. Judah is not convinced that Reuben’s suggestion is an improvement over the original plan. The brothers have two ways to kill Joseph – immediately or gradually, the brothers’ way or Judah’s way. Of course, Judah is not aware of Reuben’s intentions. Accordingly, he suggests a less hostile proposal – do not kill our brother in any way; rather, sell him to some barterers.

These traders are identified as Midianites and Ishmaelites. Judg. 8:22-28 state clearly that Midianite and Ishmaelite are overlapping, identical terms. In other words, the two names were used interchangeably to refer to North Arabian caravaneers who branched off through Gilead (v. 25) from the main transport route on the way to Egypt. This would be but one episode of pastoral groups repeatedly journeying from Northern Arabia and southern Canaan to Egypt, bringing their products of incense to sell at the Pharaoh’s court. That Judg. 8:24 in particular equates Ishmaelites with Midianites suggests that in Gideon’s time at least “Midianites” represented a confederation of tribal groups. The interchange of “Ishmaelites” and “Midianites” in Gen. 37 suggests that at one time the Ishmaelites were the most prominent confederation of nomads in southern Palestine, and that their name might be attached to and linked with other groups. This would mean that “Ishmaelite” in Gen. 37 is not primarily an ethnic designation but is a catchall term for nomadic travelers. Thus “Ishmaelite” is the more generic term (Bedouin nomad), while “Midianite” is the more specific and ethnic term.

Does the text provide any evidence for this theory? Why identify this new group first by a more general term (v. 25), and then subsequently re-identify them by a different and more specific term (v. 28a)? To answer the first question, I would point out that the phrase ‘orehat yismeelim in v. 25, which I have translated “a caravan of Ishmaelites.” One might also render it “an Ishmaelite [i.e., nomadic] caravan,” implying a general name for this group. Who constitutes this ambiguous group of caravaneers is made clear by v. 28a: ‘anasim midyanim soharim, “Midianite men, merchants.”

To answer the second question, note that vv. 18-24 follow the same progression of description as vv. 25-28. First, Joseph (v. 18) and the Ishmaelite caravan (v. 25) are observed approaching the brothers from a distance. Second, Joseph (vv. 19-22) and the caravaneers (vv. 26-27) are talked about by the brother before either meets the brothers. Third, when Joseph and the Ishmaelites do meet the brothers, the brothers go into action, stripping Joseph and casting him into a cistern (vv. 23-24), and eventually selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites (v. 28). The last unit, vv. 25-30, describes the group that the brothers saw on the horizon, and for this distant sighting it uses the more general term. From afar, they appeared to be a group of Bedouin nomads. When this group subsequently comes into closer view they are identified as Midianites.

This interpretation raises considerably the possibility that the subject of “pulled up” and “sold” in v. 28 is the brothers. As these Ishmaelite caravaneers (i.e., Midiante merchants as they come into focus) pass by, Joseph’s brothers pull him up from the cistern and sell him to these passers-by.²⁰

In 45:4-5, Joseph states that his brothers sold him into slavery. The idea that the Midianites and Ishmaelites were the same people allows us to reconcile 37:36 and 39:1.

29-30 When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he tore his clothes and returned to his brothers and said, “The boy is gone, and I, where shall I go?”

That Reuben was dumbfounded to find the well empty indicates that he was not present when the transaction with the Midiantes/Ishmaelites was carried out. Perhaps as the oldest brother he went to guard the sheep that the brothers were pasturing as these strangers passed by. After they depart, he is free to leave the flock unattended or turn that responsibility over to one of his brothers, return to his brothers, and check on Joseph in the well.

It is true that Joseph later identifies himself to the brothers as the one they “sold” into Egypt (45:4), but earlier in his Egyptian confinement he told his cell mate that he was “stolen” from the land of the Hebrews (40:15). Does this variation reflect one tradition in which Joseph was sold by his brothers to Ishmaelites (J), and a second tradition in which Joseph was stolen by Midiantes (E)? Why two words to describe what happened to Joseph – “sold” and “stolen”? It is quite probable that Joseph deliberately adjusted the story as he narrated it in ch. 40, for he was attempting to curry the cupbearer’s favor. He knows the cupbearer is his only path to freedom. To have mentioned that he was sold by his brothers would make the cupbearer suspicious, rather than trusting. By saying he was stolen, Joseph is underscoring that what happened to him was something over which he had no control, and which he, in his judgment, had done nothing to deserve.²¹

31 Then they took Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood.

The brothers use the alibi they had originally planned (v 20). “There is a touch of subtle irony here since years before, a kid [goat] and the garment of his brother had played key roles in Jacob’s deception of his father, as told in 27:9, 15, 16. Now his own sons deceive him through the instrumentality of a kid and their brother’s garment.”²²

32 And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, “This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not.”

Literally, “They sent . . . and they brought,” preserving a separate subject for each verb. Hoping to avoid any suspicion of involvement in Joseph’s fate, the brothers apparently sent the bloodstained tunic to their father by way of others who pretended they had found it. This interpretation overcomes the difficulty of the brothers’ harsh and unlikely statement about “your son’s tunic” when speaking to their father about their brother.²³

33 And he identified it and said, “It is my son’s robe. A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces.”

Jacob says the words the brothers had originally planned to say (v 20).

Jacob concludes that an evil beast (hayya raa) has killed Joseph. According to Ezek. 5:17; 14:15, 21; 33:27, “evil beasts” are one of four of God’s agents of punishment, along with sword, famine, and pestilence. The idea is also implicit in Jer. 15:3 (where God appoints the sword, dogs, birds, and beasts as destroyers), in Lev. 26:22 (“I will let loose the wild beasts among you”), and in Hos. 2:14 (Eng. 12: “the beasts of the field shall devour them”). This fact may explain the mixture of terror and grief that Jacob now experiences. Joseph may have met this tragic end because of a divine judgment, due either to Joseph’s sin or Jacob’s sin.²⁴

34 Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days.

“His inconsolable grief was perhaps intensified by feelings of guilt at having sent Joseph alone on such a long and perilous journey.”²⁵

35 All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, “No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Thus his father wept for him.

Sheol is the abode of the dead. That Jacob expects to meet his son there indicates that he expected some form of life after death.

36 Meanwhile the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard.

The real fate of Joseph is repeated. That Potiphar was an officer of Pharaoh does not mean he was a eunuch. There is no evidence of eunuchs as an institution in ancient Egypt and Potiphar has a wife (ch. 39).²⁶ The Hebrew reflects the Egptian Pa-di-Pre, meaning “he whom Re has given.”²⁷

Bibliography

Last updated: November 11, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

¹These are the generations of Esau (that is, Edom). ²Esau took his wives from the Canaanites: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Oholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, ³and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter, the sister of Nebaioth. ⁴And Adah bore to Esau, Eliphaz; Basemath bore Reuel; ⁵and Oholibamah bore Jeush, Jalam, and Korah. These are the sons of Esau who were born to him in the land of Canaan.

⁶Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, his livestock, all his beasts, and all his property that he had acquired in the land of Canaan. He went into a land away from his brother Jacob. ⁷For their possessions were too great for them to dwell together. The land of their sojournings could not support them because of their livestock. ⁸So Esau settled in the hill country of Seir. (Esau is Edom.)

⁹These are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. ¹⁰These are the names of Esau’s sons: Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, Reuel the son of Basemath the wife of Esau. ¹¹The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz. ¹²(Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, Esau’s son; she bore Amalek to Eliphaz.) These are the sons of Adah, Esau’s wife. ¹³These are the sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. These are the sons of Basemath, Esau’s wife. ¹⁴These are the sons of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon, Esau’s wife: she bore to Esau Jeush, Jalam, and Korah.

¹⁵These are the chiefs of the sons of Esau. The sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau: the chiefs Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz, ¹⁶Korah, Gatam, and Amalek; these are the chiefs of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Adah. ¹⁷These are the sons of Reuel, Esau’s son: the chiefs Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah; these are the chiefs of Reuel in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Basemath, Esau’s wife. ¹⁸These are the sons of Oholibamah, Esau’s wife: the chiefs Jeush, Jalam, and Korah; these are the chiefs born of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau’s wife. ¹⁹These are the sons of Esau (that is, Edom), and these are their chiefs.

²⁰These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, ²¹Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan; these are the chiefs of the Horites, the sons of Seir in the land of Edom. ²²The sons of Lotan were Hori and Hemam; and Lotan’s sister was Timna. ²³These are the sons of Shobal: Alvan, Manahath, Ebal, Shepho, and Onam. ²⁴These are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah; he is the Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness, as he pastured the donkeys of Zibeon his father. ²⁵These are the children of Anah: Dishon and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah. ²⁶These are the sons of Dishon: Hemdan, Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran. ²⁷These are the sons of Ezer: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan. ²⁸These are the sons of Dishan: Uz and Aran. ²⁹These are the chiefs of the Horites: the chiefs Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, ³⁰Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan; these are the chiefs of the Horites, chief by chief in the land of Seir.

³¹These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites. ³²Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom, the name of his city being Dinhabah. ³³Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place. ³⁴Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place. ³⁵Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the country of Moab, reigned in his place, the name of his city being Avith. ³⁶Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. ³⁷Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth on the Euphrates reigned in his place. ³⁸Shaul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place. ³⁹Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his place, the name of his city being Pau; his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, daughter of Mezahab.

⁴⁰These are the names of the chiefs of Esau, according to their clans and their dwelling places, by their names: the chiefs Timna, Alvah, Jetheth, ⁴¹Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, ⁴²Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar, ⁴³Magdiel, and Iram; these are the chiefs of Edom (that is, Esau, the father of Edom), according to their dwelling places in the land of their possession.

Notes

1 These are the generations of Esau (that is, Edom).

Edom was a nation east of Israel.

2-3 Esau took his wives from the Canaanites: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Oholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter, the sister of Nebaioth.

In 26:34 it says that Esau married Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, not Adah. In 28:9 it says that Esau married Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, not Basemath.

6-8 Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, his livestock, all his beasts, and all his property that he had acquired in the land of Canaan. He went into a land away from his brother Jacob. For their possessions were too great for them to dwell together. The land of their sojournings could not support them because of their livestock. So Esau settled in the hill country of Seir. (Esau is Edom.)

The earlier narrative had Esau living in Seir before Jacob returned from Laban’s (32:4; 33:14, 16). It is difficult to reconcile that earlier narrative with these verses.

9 These are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir.

This verse basically repeats verse 1, leading some scholars to believe that verses 9-43 were inserted at a later time.

12 (Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, Esau’s son; she bore Amalek to Eliphaz.) These are the sons of Adah, Esau’s wife.

Behind this parenthetical note lies social and political history. According to verse 22, Timna was “the sister of Lotan,” and indigenous Horite. This means that the Edomites who migrated to Seir began to intermarry with the natives but that such alliances were not socially acceptable, which explains Timna’s inferior status here as a concubine rather than as a wife. It also means that, at some period, the Amalekites joined the Edomite tribal confederation and attached themselves to the Eliphaz clan in a subordinate relationship.

The obviously intrusive character of this item, which breaks the connection between the preceding data and the following clause, suggests that its purpose is to draw attention to the Amalekites not being genuine Edomites. This is important because Deuteronomy 23:8-9 forbids an Israelite to “abhor an Edomite,” “a kinsman” of Israel. His progeny of the third generation may be admitted to the fellowship of Israel. Not so the Amalekites. They are to be punished for their treacherous, unprovoked aggression against a defenseless Israel at the moment of its national liberation, as described in Exodus 17:8-16 and Deuteronomy 25:17-19.¹

15-16 These are the chiefs of the sons of Esau. The sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau: the chiefs Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz, Korah, Gatam, and Amalek; these are the chiefs of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Adah.

It is not clear whether ‘alluf means “chief” or “clan.” Clan appears to make more sense in verses 19, 40, and 43.

20-21 These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan; these are the chiefs of the Horites, the sons of Seir in the land of Edom.

Verses 20-30, in conjunction with Deuteronomy 2:12, imply that Esau and his descendants gradually displaced the Horites.

24 These are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah; he is the Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness, as he pastured the donkeys of Zibeon his father.

This verse presupposes that the reader will be familiar with a now lost story.

31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.

Many commentators find verses 31-39 to be historically inaccurate due to the fact that both written and archaeological evidence shows that the inhabitants of Edom were largely nomadic in the 13th-12th centuries BC, the time period in view here. Such commentators are reading too much into the text. This verse says the kings reigned in Edom, and not necessarily over all of Edom. Petty kings who held sway over grazing land in a particular locality are well documented in the ancient world. The kings of verses 31-39 should be thought of as local chieftains.² Note that the kings in this list are not descendants of each other and that each reigns in a different place.

37 Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth on the Euphrates reigned in his place.

“Usually ‘the river’ in the Bible is the Euphrates, but this is very far from Edom. Here it may refer to Wadi el-Hesa, the natural border between Edom and Moab.”³

40-43 These are the names of the chiefs of Esau, according to their clans and their dwelling places, by their names: the chiefs Timna, Alvah, Jetheth, Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar, Magdiel, and Iram; these are the chiefs of Edom (that is, Esau, the father of Edom), according to their dwelling places in the land of their possession.

Apparently the clan names (see note on verses 15-16) and their localities are identical. Elah probably refers to Elath on the Gulf of Akaba, the southernmost boundary of Edom (Deuteronomy 2:8).⁴ Pinon may be the Punon of Numbers 33:42-43, one of the stations of the Israelites during the wilderness wandering. Esau’s death is not recorded, but his story closes at this point.

Bibliography

Last updated: October 26, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

¹God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there. Make an altar there to the God who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.” ²So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods that are among you and purify yourselves and change your garments. ³Then let us arise and go up to Bethel, so that I may make there an altar to the God who answers me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone.” ⁴So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that they had, and the rings that were in their ears. Jacob hid them under the terebinth tree that was near Shechem.

⁵And as they journeyed, a terror from God fell upon the cities that were around them, so that they did not pursue the sons of Jacob. ⁶And Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who were with him, ⁷and there he built an altar and called the place El-bethel, because there God had revealed himself to him when he fled from his brother. ⁸And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried under an oak below Bethel. So he called its name Allon-bacuth.

⁹God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. ¹⁰And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.” So he called his name Israel. ¹¹And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. ¹²The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you.” ¹³Then God went up from him in the place where he had spoken with him. ¹⁴And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he had spoken with him, a pillar of stone. He poured out a drink offering on it and poured oil on it. ¹⁵So Jacob called the name of the place where God had spoken with him Bethel.

¹⁶Then they journeyed from Bethel. When they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel went into labor, and she had hard labor. ¹⁷And when her labor was at its hardest, the midwife said to her, “Do not fear, for you have another son.” ¹⁸And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin. ¹⁹So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem), ²⁰and Jacob set up a pillar over her tomb. It is the pillar of Rachel’s tomb, which is there to this day. ²¹Israel journeyed on and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder.

²²While Israel lived in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine. And Israel heard of it.

Now the sons of Jacob were twelve. ²³The sons of Leah: Reuben (Jacob’s firstborn), Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. ²⁴The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. ²⁵The sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s servant: Dan and Naphtali. ²⁶The sons of Zilpah, Leah’s servant: Gad and Asher. These were the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Paddan-aram.

²⁷And Jacob came to his father Isaac at Mamre, or Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron), where Abraham and Isaac had sojourned. ²⁸Now the days of Isaac were 180 years. ²⁹And Isaac breathed his last, and he died and was gathered to his people, old and full of days. And his sons Esau and Jacob buried him.

Notes

1 God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there. Make an altar there to the God who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.”

This verse recalls earlier episodes in the Jacob cycle (Genesis 27-28). Jacob is the first patriarch to be commanded by God to build an altar.

2-3 So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods that are among you and purify yourselves and change your garments. Then let us arise and go up to Bethel, so that I may make there an altar to the God who answers me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone.”

“Jacob vowed at Bethel that if he returned from his exile safe and sound, ‘the LORD shall be my God.’ Hence, before embarking on the pilgrimage to that city, he makes formal renunciation of ‘alien gods.’ For the first time in the Bible, there now appears a recognition of tension between the religion of Israel and that of its neighbors.”¹ Jacob’s family purifies themselves both inwardly and outwardly.

4 So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that they had, and the rings that were in their ears. Jacob hid them under the terebinth tree that was near Shechem.

The family members respond as requested, putting away their foreign gods and also their earrings. The significance of this last point is elusive. On two later occasions, earrings were used to make objects of idolatrous worship, the golden calf and an ephod (Exod 32:2-4; Judg 8:24-27). It could be that burying the earrings along with the foreign gods expressed their complete determination to dispose of the idols and also any material that could be used to replace them. A comparison with Num 31:48-54 suggests a quite different possibility. After the battle with the Midianites, the Israelites had to purify themselves (Num 31:19-20). Part of their purification process included donating to the sanctuary booty consisting of “articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD” (Num 31:50). This suggests that the rings removed by Jacob’s sons may well have been part of the booty captured by them from the Shechemites; indeed it is possible that the outer garments and the foreign gods (gold-plated idols?) were part of the spoil (cf. Num 31:20; Josh 7:21; Deut 7:25).²

5 And as they journeyed, a terror from God fell upon the cities that were around them, so that they did not pursue the sons of Jacob.

Recall that, after the massacre at Shechem, Jacob feared he would be attacked by his neighbors (34:30).

6-7 And Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who were with him, and there he built an altar and called the place El-bethel, because there God had revealed himself to him when he fled from his brother.

Based on the fact that Jacob is blessed in verse 9, we are probably to assume that Jacob fulfilled the vow he made in 28:20-22. Presumably Jacob’s altar would be used for sacrifices that constitute the tithe of possessions that he promised to give to God. The “House of El” (Bethel) now becomes “El of the House of El” (El-Bethel).

8 And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried under an oak below Bethel. So he called its name Allon-bacuth.

It is strange that the death of Rebekah’s nurse is mentioned while the death of Rebekah herself is not mentioned. Perhaps we are to understand that Rebekah died while Jacob was in Paddan-aram. If so, she never saw her favorite son again (27:45). We are also left to wonder how Rebekah’s nurse came to be in Jacob’s company. Allon-bacuth means “oak of weeping.” “With the purging of idolatry and the arrival at Bethel, the contacts with Mesopotamia, maintained by each of the patriarchs, are finally and decisively severed.”³

9 God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him.

The word “again” alludes to the theophany during Jacob’s first visit to Bethel (28:10-22). The mention of Paddan-aram emphasizes the successful return to the promised land.

10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.” So he called his name Israel.

Jacob’s name change is reaffirmed. That no explanation of the name Israel is given here means the narrator assumes the reader is familiar with 32:29[28] and that this is not an independent account of Jacob’s name change. “Jacob is reminded that he returns to Canaan not as Jacob but as Israel. He is not only to bury the foreign gods, but he is to bury what has become for all practical purposes a foreign nature – a Jacob nature. He who earlier instructed the people to change their garments must live up to his own change of name.”⁴ “The significance of the new name emerges from the succeeding blessing, which is national in scope and consists of the promise of fertility, nationhood, kingship, and territory. Jacob, by becoming also Israel, is the true heir to the Abrahamic promises, the one through whom the nation of Israel is to come into being.”⁵

11-12 And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you.”

The promises here echo previous promises to the patriarchs (17:1-8; 25:23; 28:3-4, 13-15).

14 And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he had spoken with him, a pillar of stone. He poured out a drink offering on it and poured oil on it.

This act of worship also fulfills Jacob’s vow.

16 Then they journeyed from Bethel. When they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel went into labor, and she had hard labor.

The location of Benjamin’s birth and Rachel’s tomb are important to the narrative (vv. 16b, 19). The site provided a reference point for future generations (“to this day,” v. 20), indicating that the last son born to the patriarch occurred in the land. Even Rachel’s burial in the land demonstrated that God’s word had been truthful. Although Rachel had lived outside Canaan, her final place was permanently in the land of promise as the matriarch of Israel’s tribes, Joseph and Benjamin. “Still some distance from Ephrath” gives a vague description of the locality. The identification of Ephrath(ah) with the town of Bethlehem in Judah (v. 19; 48:7) places the tomb south of Jerusalem and north of Bethlehem (see also Ruth 4:11; 1 Chr 4:4; Mic 5:2[1]; cf. Ruth 1:2; 1 Sam 17:12; Matt 2:18). How far the tomb was from Bethel toward Bethlehem in relation to the trek by Jacob must be derived from elsewhere. The traditional site today is one mile north of Bethlehem, but we will see that this is unlikely the correct burial site. Another clue to its location is 1 Sam 10:2, placing it “at Zelzah on the border of Benjamin”; but this implies that the tomb was north of Jerusalem in Benjamin’s territory. One explanation is that “Bethlehem” is an incorrect gloss (v. 19); the Samuel passage reflects the accurate location in Benjamin, which accords with Jer 31:15 that links Rachel’s weeping with Ramah (= er-Ram [?], fives miles north of Jerusalem, Josh 18:25). Some scholars find further confirmation that the location is north of Jerusalem in Ps 132:6 that parallels “Ephrathah” and “Jaar”; this latter site is probably the town Kiriath-jearim (cf. 1 Chr 2:50), which is eight miles northwest of Jerusalem on the border of Benjamin and Judah (Josh 18:15). But Sarna explains that 1 Chr 2:50-51 shows that the two towns Bethlehem and Kiriath-jearim were connected with the common ancestor Ephrath, suggesting that the original Judahite clan Ephrath extended its influence to both locations. Since Zilzah is thought necessary by the author of 1 Sam 10:2 to locate the tomb’s vicinity, we may agree with B.K. Waltke’s suggestion that “near Rachel’s tomb” was not intended to be a precise designation. This unspecific description permits the location to be on the Benjamin-Judah border, just south of Jerusalem. Moreover, the connection scholars make between Rachel’s tomb and Ramah is taken for granted, but Jeremiah does not make this connection (31:15). Ramah is along the route taken by the exiles of Benjamin and Judah, whose deportation by the Babylonians evokes the wailing of Rachel’s children (Gen. Rab. 82.10).⁶

17 And when her labor was at its hardest, the midwife said to her, “Do not fear, for you have another son.”

In her dying moments Rachel sees the fulfillment of her earlier prayer for another son (30:24).

18 And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

Death in childbirth was, till recently, tragically common, so doubtless Rachel’s death did not have quite the same pathos for the ancient reader as it does for us. Yet it was undoubtedly tragic, for it was Rachel who had cried in desperation to Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die” (30:1). It was ultimately the gift of children that killed her. And her choice of name, Ben-Oni, “son of sorrow” (cf. Ichabod in 1 Sam 4:21-22), reflects this. “Sorrow” is used of mourning for the dead in Deut 26:14; Hos 9:4. But for Jacob, the child was the son of his favorite wife, so he “called him Benjamin,” son of the right, the right-hand side being the favored lucky side (e.g., Deut 27:12-13; Matt 25:33).⁷

21 Israel journeyed on and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder.

The “tower of Eder” literally means “tower of the flock.” It was somewhere between Bethlehem and Hebron.

22a While Israel lived in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine. And Israel heard of it.

It seems likely that Reuben’s motives were more than sensual. By his act, he hoped to prevent Rachel’s maid succeeding Rachel as his father’s favorite wife. Reuben resented that Jacob did not honor his mother Leah. Also, it was a claim to authority over his father (cf. Abner lying with Saul’s concubine, 2 Sam 3:7-8); as firstborn he was asserting a claim to his father’s estate. But these motives do not mitigate Scripture’s condemnation. This kind of incest is categorically condemned in Lev 18:8, and according to Lev 20:11, it warrants the death penalty and God’s curse, according to Deut 27:20. Within Genesis, it evokes the sins of Ham (9:22-27) and Lot’s daughters (19:33-38), and outside Genesis it foreshadows the ultimate act of hubris in Absalom’s rebellion, when he went into his father’s concubines (2 Sam 16:21-22). This act was a turning point in the rebellion; thereafter everything started to go wrong for Absalom. Similarly, the legal texts show that such an act, which is an offense against both filial piety and sexual propriety, cannot go unpunished. Yet here, as in chap. 34, Jacob is strangely silent. He just “heard about it” (cf. 34:5).

What does he think? By failing to report any reaction on Jacob’s part, the narrator has left a gap that no one can miss. Is Jacob as indifferent to Bilhah’s abuse as he was to Dinah’s, despite her being his dearest Rachel’s maid? Or does he care but is now incapable of exerting authority over his oldest son? These great questions are posed just before the Joseph story begins, and they are doubtless intended to color our reading of chaps. 37-50. This episode suggests that there is tension not only between Jacob and his sons descended from Leah but also between the sons of Bilhah and Rachel on the one hand and the sons of Leah on the other. Furthermore, though Reuben appears throughout the Joseph story in quite a humane light, trying to rescue Joseph and so on, this episode shows the dark side of his character. But not until 49:2-3 does Jacob show his deep anger at Reuben’s behavior, when the firstborn’s blessing turns into a curse.⁸

22b-26 Now the sons of Jacob were twelve. The sons of Leah: Reuben (Jacob’s firstborn), Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. The sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s servant: Dan and Naphtali. The sons of Zilpah, Leah’s servant: Gad and Asher. These were the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Paddan-aram.

The sons of Jacob are mentioned here, arranged by mother, to prepare the way for the Joseph story with its sibling rivalries. Yet they also show that the promise of a multitude of descendants is being fulfilled (28:14; 32:12). As verses 16-19 make clear, Benjamin was not born in Paddan-aram.

27 And Jacob came to his father Isaac at Mamre, or Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron), where Abraham and Isaac had sojourned.

Isaac has apparently moved from Beersheba (28:10) to Hebron. Jacob has successfully returned to his father’s house (28:15, 21).

28 Now the days of Isaac were 180 years.

Chronologically, Isaac lived twelve years beyond the sale of Joseph.

29 And Isaac breathed his last, and he died and was gathered to his people, old and full of days. And his sons Esau and Jacob buried him.

Jacob and Esau, like Isaac and Ishmael before them (25:9), come together to bury their father. Isaac is buried in the ancestral grave at Machpelah, with his wife Rebekah (49:29-32).

Bibliography

Last updated: October 24, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

¹Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. ²And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized her and lay with her and humiliated her. ³And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. ⁴So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this girl for my wife.”

⁵Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. ⁶And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. ⁷The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing must not be done.

⁸But Hamor spoke with them, saying, “The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him to be his wife. ⁹Make marriages with us. Give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves. ¹⁰You shall dwell with us, and the land shall be open to you. Dwell and trade in it, and get property in it.” ¹¹Shechem also said to her father and to her brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and whatever you say to me I will give. ¹²Ask me for as great a bride price and gift as you will, and I will give whatever you say to me. Only give me the young woman to be my wife.”

¹³The sons of Jacob answered Shechem and his father Hamor deceitfully, because he had defiled their sister Dinah. ¹⁴They said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us. ¹⁵Only on this condition will we agree with you—that you will become as we are by every male among you being circumcised. ¹⁶Then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to ourselves, and we will dwell with you and become one people. ¹⁷But if you will not listen to us and be circumcised, then we will take our daughter, and we will be gone.”

¹⁸Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem. ¹⁹And the young man did not delay to do the thing, because he delighted in Jacob’s daughter. Now he was the most honored of all his father’s house. ²⁰So Hamor and his son Shechem came to the gate of their city and spoke to the men of their city, saying, ²¹“These men are at peace with us; let them dwell in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters as wives, and let us give them our daughters. ²²Only on this condition will the men agree to dwell with us to become one people—when every male among us is circumcised as they are circumcised. ²³Will not their livestock, their property and all their beasts be ours? Only let us agree with them, and they will dwell with us.” ²⁴And all who went out of the gate of his city listened to Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.

²⁵On the third day, when they were sore, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and came against the city while it felt secure and killed all the males. ²⁶They killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house and went away. ²⁷The sons of Jacob came upon the slain and plundered the city, because they had defiled their sister. ²⁸They took their flocks and their herds, their donkeys, and whatever was in the city and in the field. ²⁹All their wealth, all their little ones and their wives, all that was in the houses, they captured and plundered.

³⁰Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me by making me stink to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. My numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household.” ³¹But they said, “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?”

Notes

1 Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land.

Dinah was introduced in 30:21, but her parentage is repeated here to emphasize that Simeon and Levi were her full brothers (29:33-34; 34:25; 35:23) so as to explain their particularly violent reaction (vv 25-26, 31) to her rape. That she is the daughter of the unloved Leah may explain Jacob’s apparent lack of concern in verse 5.

2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized her and lay with her and humiliated her.

Shechem’s princely status allowed him to later successfully encourage the Hivites to undergo circumcision in order to make a treaty with Jacob’s clan.

This description of the offense committed by Shechem has been traditionally interpreted as the rape of Dinah. The absence of a technical term meaning “rape” (forced sexual relations) in biblical Hebrew has left open the question as to whether the description in Shechem’s case is rape or simply “sexual relations.” If in this latter case Shechem’s crime was not rape but his transgression of customary sexual behavior, his specific violation could be one of two possible breaches. First, his crime was the mere fact that as a foreigner (uncircumcised, v. 14) he engaged in sexual relations with an Israelite. Or second, he did not go through the proper procedure of betrothal, but having done so, he further offended Jacob’s household by failure to admit his crime and to provide proper compensation for the offense. The result was a shaming of the woman and the household of Jacob.

L. Bechtel interprets ‘nh in the broad sense of “humiliation,” that is, to shame a woman. The remedy was the treaty offered by Hamor (v. 9) that would restore honor by creating the possibility of family bonding through marriage. She relies on the usage of ‘nh in four passages (Deut 22:23-24, 25-27, 28-29 and 2 Sam 13:11-14), arguing that the verb pattern (‘nh follows skb) in Deut 22:23-24 and 22:28-29 compares most favorably with 34:2. In these two legal cases, there is no rape but a shaming of the woman because of improper sexual intercourse. When rape occurs in the remaining two passages, the description of the act includes the verb hazaq, “seized” (Deut 22:25-27; 2 Sam 13:11-14). In the case of Deut 22:25-27, where a virgin is raped in the countryside, there is no shame for her action, thus the absence of ‘nh in the description. In the Samuel passage, however, Tamar’s rape carries shame (‘nh, v. 14; here ‘nh precedes skb) because she had sexual relations with a family member, thus a “disgrace” (herpa) that Tamar must bear (v. 13). We agree that the examination of ‘nh clarifies that the term cannot be automatically equated with rape. Each passage’s context must give additional clues to determine the nature of the sex act. We know the term ‘nh can mean rape in the sense of abuse, as in the case of the old man’s virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine (cf. “use,” Judg 19:24; “raped,” 20:5). Also we question that Deut 22:28-29 does not describe molestation, since the man “seizes” (tapas) the victim. The description in 34:2 has the equivalent idea of taking by force in the description “[Shechem] took [laqah] her” (cp. “sezied her,” NRSV, NAB, NJB).

A related issue is the significance of the construction wayyiskab otah, lit., “he lay [with] her” (v. 2), in which the verb skb takes the direct object marker ‘eth. This contrasts with skb followed by the prepositional phrase, skb ‘immah, “he lay with her” (e.g., Deut 22:23, 25, 28-29; cf. 19:32; 30:15). Neither construction can be said to function as a technical expression for permissible or unlawful sexual relations. The former construction may describe rape (e.g., 2 Sam 13:14), but not always, though it can be said that skb with the direct object ‘eth often bears an illicit connotation (e.g., 26:10; Lev 15:24; Num 5:13, 19). Moreover, the alternative expression skb ‘immah (“lay with her”) may describe a case of rape (Deut 22:25), and instances of skb followed by the preposition “with” (‘im) describe typical and atypical sexual relations (e.g., 19:32; 30:15). We conclude that Dinah was raped.

The two verbs ‘nh and skb describing Shechem’s action in 34:2 also depict (inverted order) Amnon’s rape of his half-sister, Tamar (2 Sam 13:14). The succinct report of Shechem’s assault, lit., “he saw . . . took . . . lay . . . humbled her,” contrasts to the prolonged dialogue between the parties prior to the rape in the Amnon-Tamar narrative. The rape of Dinah, though the act is powerfully portrayed in v. 2 by the preponderance of verbs, is prelude to the narrative’s main interest. What the narrative delves into is the outcome of the rape, detailing the discourse of the men, especially their negotiations and the deception fostered by Jacob’s sons. Nevertheless, the description of the attack effectively shows that Dinah was not a willing partner in the incident.¹

3 And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her.

The narrator stresses that Shechem did not merely lust after Dinah, but actually loved her. By speaking tenderly too her, he may have been trying to comfort her (Genesis 50:21; Ruth 2:13; Isaiah 40:2) or woo her (Hosea 2:14[16]).

4 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this girl for my wife.”

Parents commonly negotiated a marriage arrangement for their sons (Judges 14:2). That Dinah is called a “girl” (yalda) suggests she is young.

5 Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came.

Jacob’s passivity throughout this passage is remarkable, especially considering his attachment to Joseph and Benjamin (37:34-35; 43:1-14).

6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him.

Note that Dinah is apparently still being held within Hamor’s house in the city (vv 17, 26).

7 The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing must not be done.

“Hebrew nevalah [an outrageous thing] is a powerful term describing offenses of such profound abhorrence that they threaten to tear apart the fabric of Israelite society. For society’s own self-protection, such atrocities can never be tolerated or left unpunished.”² The mention of “Israel” is an example of the brothers’ sense of ethnic distinction from the Hivites.

8-10 But Hamor spoke with them, saying, “The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him to be his wife. Make marriages with us. Give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves. You shall dwell with us, and the land shall be open to you. Dwell and trade in it, and get property in it.”

Hamor hopes to convince Jacob’s family that his son truly desires Dinah to be his wife, presumably to mitigate the severity of the crime.

11-12 Shechem also said to her father and to her brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and whatever you say to me I will give. Ask me for as great a bride price and gift as you will, and I will give whatever you say to me. Only give me the young woman to be my wife.”

Shechem’s readiness to pay beyond the normal bride price and gift is a tacit admission that he needs to make reparations for the rape of Dinah.

13 The sons of Jacob answered Shechem and his father Hamor deceitfully, because he had defiled their sister Dinah.

The sons of Jacob, being few in number, have to use guile to liberate their sister (v 26). “An ironic twist in history is that the Hivite population at Gibeon employed deception against the Israelites to secure a peace arrangement (Josh 9:7-13; 11:19) but became subject to the Israelites (Josh 9:21-23; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20-21).”³

By characterizing their speech as deceptive, the author’s stand toward the sons of Jacob is certain. He condemns their tactics and their reaction. The repeated reference by the author to the assault explains their reaction but does not attempt to justify it. The author does not build sympathy for the brothers; rather for him their conduct exhibits the consequences of illicit contact with the Canaanites. If the author intends us to measure their action against the moral code of the law, it was a vile transgression of murder through deceit (cf. v. 5 above; see, e.g., Deut 22:28-29; Exod 22:16-17[15-16]).⁴

14-17 They said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us. Only on this condition will we agree with you—that you will become as we are by every male among you being circumcised. Then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to ourselves, and we will dwell with you and become one people. But if you will not listen to us and be circumcised, then we will take our daughter, and we will be gone.”

Genesis 17:9-14 makes circumcision a condition for being admitted to the Israelite community. Obviously, in this passage, the brothers have no intention of intermarrying with the inhabitants of the city. There is irony in that the “part of the body used by Shechem in his violent passion will itself become the source of his own punishment!”⁵ “It is not clear whether Jacob’s sons expected Hamor and Shechem to accept their terms; they may well have expected them to balk at such uncomfortable conditions (cf. 1 Sam 18:25), which would have given them grounds for using force.”⁶

18 Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem.

Hamor was pleased to gain a business interest and Shechem was pleased to gain a wife.

19 And the young man did not delay to do the thing, because he delighted in Jacob’s daughter. Now he was the most honored of all his father’s house.

The phrase “did not delay to do the thing” may refer to the circumcision or to going to the city gate, but it seems unlikely that he would speak to the men of the city immediately after a circumcision. The men of the city were likely to respond to “the most honored” member of Hamor’s house.

20-23 So Hamor and his son Shechem came to the gate of their city and spoke to the men of their city, saying, “These men are at peace with us; let them dwell in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters as wives, and let us give them our daughters. Only on this condition will the men agree to dwell with us to become one people—when every male among us is circumcised as they are circumcised. Will not their livestock, their property and all their beasts be ours? Only let us agree with them, and they will dwell with us.”

A comparison of this speech with those in vv 9-12, 14-17 is revealing. In addressing their fellow townsmen, Hamor and Shechem adopt a quite different line from that taken in earlier negotiations. They say nothing about their own personal involvement in the matter, that Shechem wants to marry Dinah; rather they begin by insisting on the advantages of intermarriage for the whole town (v 21). Then they mention the need for circumcision (v 22), and finally they return to the economic advantages of intermarriage. Whereas they had promised to the Israelites that “they could acquire possessions in it” (v 10), they say nothing about that to their own people; instead they say “their flocks, their possessions, and all their herds, will they not be ours?” Hamor and Shechem also fail to mention the threat to seize Dinah with which Jacob’s sons ended their negotiations.

Now some of these changes could be construed as merely diplomatic, for Hamor had to emphasize the economic advantages for the Shechemites if they were ever to be persuaded of the value of circumcision. Nevertheless, failing to mention the land concession and claiming that the Israelite animals would theirs verges on deceit. They are either tricking their townsmen, or if they are being frank with them, they must have been dishonest in their negotiations with Jacob and his sons. Calvin comments with typical trenchancy, “[Hamor and Shechem] then enumerate other advantages; meanwhile, they cunningly conceal the private and real cause of their request. Whence it follows that all these pretexts are fallacious. But it is a very common disease, that men of rank who have great authority, while making all things subservient to their own private ends, feign themselves to be considerate for the common good, and pretend a desire for the public advantage” (2:224).

Certainly this disclosure of Hamor and Shechem’s double-dealing and the avarice of their fellow citizens tends to reduce our shock at the fate that is about to overtake them. Indeed, there is an element of dramatic irony in their words. They describe the Israelites as “peaceably disposed toward us” (v 21), little suspecting what they were planning. They ask, “Their flocks, their possessions . . . will they not be ours?” (v 23). But in a few days the situation will be reversed, with the Israelites plundering all their possessions (vv 28-29).⁷

24 And all who went out of the gate of his city listened to Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.

The phrase “all who went out of the gate of his city” probably refers to all the men of military age (Job 29:7; cf. 23:18). The fact that “every male” was circumcised explains how Simeon and Levi were able to kill all the males in the city.

25 On the third day, when they were sore, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and came against the city while it felt secure and killed all the males.

The third day after the circumcision is the day on which the pain from the operation would be the most intense. The fever that would develop as a result of the operation would only make the condition of the recently circumcised more intolerable. The men of Shechem would be least able to retaliate. In fact, retaliation would be ruled out. Accordingly, the sons of Jacob bide their time, and strike with a passion when counter-resistance is expected to be minimal.⁸

That the city “felt secure,” or was unsuspecting, further explains the success of the brothers. It is possible that Simeon and Levi had additional help that the narrator does not mention.

26 They killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house and went away.

Only now does the reader learn that Dinah had been in the house of Shechem the whole time.

27-29 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain and plundered the city, because they had defiled their sister. They took their flocks and their herds, their donkeys, and whatever was in the city and in the field. All their wealth, all their little ones and their wives, all that was in the houses, they captured and plundered.

The city is plundered but not destroyed. “This passage balances verse 23. Instead of the Hivites appropriating the possessions of the sons of Jacob, their possessions pass into the hands of their intended victims.”⁹

30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me by making me stink to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. My numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household.”

Jacob’s outburst focuses on the fact that he may now be vulnerable to attack and not on the immorality of his sons’ behavior. However, in 49:5-7 he curses the violence and anger that characterized Simeon and Levi.

31 But they said, “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?”

The brothers respond by asking how Jacob, who is concerned with the reaction of the Canaanites, cannot be concerned about the public disgrace that the rape caused among their neighbors. In their eyes, Jacob has failed to protect the honor of their family.

Note how Simeon and Levi refer to Dinah as “our sister,” once again reminding us of the tensions within the family. They do not speak of her as “your daughter,” as would be appropriate in addressing Jacob. “They in effect wrest her out of the father’s guardianship: she may not be your daughter, but she certainly is ‘our sister’ and no one will treat her like a whore” (Sternberg, Poetics, 474-75). Indeed, their remark “Should he treat her like a prostitute?” could be referring not just to Shechem’s treatment of Dinah, but also to Jacob’s. It may have been said in private afterwards. To do nothing about the rape and then to be willing to accept gifts after the event like a pimp. These two readings of the brother’s reply are not mutually exclusive; it may well be that this last word is intended to be read as a condemnation of both Shechem and Jacob.¹⁰

Bibliography

Last updated: October 20, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

¹And Jacob lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, Esau was coming, and four hundred men with him. So he divided the children among Leah and Rachel and the two female servants. ²And he put the servants with their children in front, then Leah with her children, and Rachel and Joseph last of all. ³He himself went on before them, bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.

⁴But Esau ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept. ⁵And when Esau lifted up his eyes and saw the women and children, he said, “Who are these with you?” Jacob said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.” ⁶Then the servants drew near, they and their children, and bowed down. ⁷Leah likewise and her children drew near and bowed down. And last Joseph and Rachel drew near, and they bowed down. ⁸Esau said, “What do you mean by all this company that I met?” Jacob answered, “To find favor in the sight of my lord.” ⁹But Esau said, “I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself.” ¹⁰Jacob said, “No, please, if I have found favor in your sight, then accept my present from my hand. For I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of God, and you have accepted me. ¹¹Please accept my blessing that is brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough.” Thus he urged him, and he took it.

¹²Then Esau said, “Let us journey on our way, and I will go ahead of you.” ¹³But Jacob said to him, “My lord knows that the children are frail, and that the nursing flocks and herds are a care to me. If they are driven hard for one day, all the flocks will die. ¹⁴Let my lord pass on ahead of his servant, and I will lead on slowly, at the pace of the livestock that are ahead of me and at the pace of the children, until I come to my lord in Seir.”

¹⁵So Esau said, “Let me leave with you some of the people who are with me.” But he said, “What need is there? Let me find favor in the sight of my lord.” ¹⁶So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir. ¹⁷But Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built himself a house and made booths for his livestock. Therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.

¹⁸And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, on his way from Paddan-aram, and he camped before the city. ¹⁹And from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, he bought for a hundred pieces of money the piece of land on which he had pitched his tent. ²⁰There he erected an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel.

Notes

2 And he put the servants with their children in front, then Leah with her children, and Rachel and Joseph last of all.

The concubine wives and their children are put at the front of the group and are thus more vulnerable. Rachel and Joseph, Jacob’s favorite wife and child (29:30; 37:3-4), are put in the safest position.

3 He himself went on before them, bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.

According to the Amarna letters, bowing seven times was the proper act of respect of a vassal to his overlord.¹ The language echoes the blessing that Isaac gave to Jacob but meant for Esau: “Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. ” (27:29). But this action is not a reversal of that blessing, it is a sign of humility.

4 But Esau ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept.

Esau’s murderous bitterness (27:41-42) is gone. It is not stated what caused this change in Esau.

5 And when Esau lifted up his eyes and saw the women and children, he said, “Who are these with you?” Jacob said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.”

Note that Jacob avoids using the potentially offensive word “blessed” when speaking of the children God gave him, which would have recalled the origin of the conflict between the brothers (ch. 27).

8 Esau said, “What do you mean by all this company that I met?” Jacob answered, “To find favor in the sight of my lord.”

Judging from Jacob’s response to Esau’s question, Esau was requesting further explanation for the herds that Jacob had sent ahead. That the messengers had already offered some explanation (32:4-5[5-6]) does not necessarily indicate the present verse is a variant tradition, as some believe. Esau probably was requesting clarification for the purpose of the herds since the number of animals was excessively generous. Or, since Jacob’s response did not differ from the earlier message, except by the deferential address “my lord” (cp. 32:6[7]), Esau may be initiating the customary show of refusal typical of negotiations.²

10-11 Jacob said, “No, please, if I have found favor in your sight, then accept my present from my hand. For I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of God, and you have accepted me. Please accept my blessing that is brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough.” Thus he urged him, and he took it.

This rhetorical extravagance yields, perhaps intentionally, several possible meanings: encountering you, Esau, is like a pilgrimage to a shrine, which one does not make empty-handed; I have been admitted to your august presence; you have been graciously indulgent of me; my encounter with you is like that with a divine being.³

Jacob ties together his meeting with God in ch. 32 with his meeting with Esau in ch. 33 by just to see your face is like seeing God’s face. “Peni-el” (face of God”) has been followed by “Peni-esau” (face of Esau). Reconciliation with God is now capped off with reconciliation with a brother. For of vassal status (like Jacob) comparing a superior to a divine being cf. 1 Sam. 29:9; 2 Sam. 14:17, 20; 19:28 (Eng. 27). On a different level cf. Acts 6:15, “they saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” Of course, Jacob is not saying that Esau has undergone a metamorphosis, or that he exudes a divine luminescence. The surprise of ch. 32 is that Jacob saw God, and yet his life was spared. The surprise in ch. 33 is that Jacob has seen Esau, and yet his life is spared. God’s mercy to Jacob is conveyed by the verb nasal (Gen. 32:31 [Eng. 30]); Esau’s mercy to Jacob is conveyed by the verb rasa (33:10).

Jacob is as insistent with Esau as he was with the man at Peniel. His “I will not let you go unless you bless me” now becomes, in effect, “I will not let you go unless you accept my gift.”⁴

Another telling remark made in Jacob’s argument is his choice of birkati (lit., “my blessing”) for describing this “present” (v. 11), which departs from the prevalent term minhati (“my gift”), occurring in v. 10 and in the prior narrative (32:13, 18, 20, 21[14, 19, 21, 22]). The word beraka may indicate generally a “gift” (e.g., Josh 15:19; 1 Sam 25:27; 2 Kgs 5:5) or a benefit (Isa 65:8). The suggestion my some commentators that Jacob by this allusion to Esau’s complaint (27:36) is returning the stolen “blessing,” in the sense of invalidating his father’s blessing, overstates Jacob’s intention. Neither is it a “slip of the tongue,” resulting from a guilty conscience. Structurally, minhati (v. 10) and birkati are parallel terms in this context, the latter nuancing the former as a gesture of goodwill. Jacob understood very well from his own losses to Laban (31:6-8, 31, 41-42) that Esau had suffered injury by his crime, desiring to make amends through this offering. The author indicates that the reason for acceptance of the gift was due to Jacob’s earnestness, “because Jacob insisted [wayyipsar],” not that Esau made a claim on Jacob’s possessions. The term rendered “insisted” (sapar) indicates passionate persuasion (19:3, 19; 2 Kgs 5:16), at one point even a fervent stubbornness or presumption likened to rebellion (1 Sam 15:23). Abraham’s displeasure at a stolen well illustrates the language of a complainant (23:25-26). We do not have claim and counterclaim here but congenial social conventions.⁵

16 So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir.

Esau’s descendants would live outside of the promised land.

17 But Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built himself a house and made booths for his livestock. Therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.

As to why Jacob did not proceed to Seir is unstated in the text. It is a “gap” in the story that the author may want the reader to fill from the earlier struggle between Jacob and Laban. In the Jacob-Laban experience, the Lord specifically directed Jacob to leave Laban’s house and return to the land of his father (31:3, 13, 30a; 32:9[10]), and perhaps we are to assume that the Lord directed Jacob again to Canaan, the land promised him twenty years earlier (cf. 28:13-22). The text has been candid heretofore about deception and obfuscation by Jacob, and its silence here implies that Jacob’s action is not a violation of the peaceful intention agreed upon by the brothers. Later we learn at the instigation of Esau that the two brothers chose not to reside together because their cumulative wealth prohibited it (36:6-7; cf. Abraham and Lot, 13:6). That the exchange between the men is mere social convention is another possible explanation for Jacob’s action.⁶

18 And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, on his way from Paddan-aram, and he camped before the city.

Jacob has safely returned to the promised land (28:21). There is debate over whether the ESV translation of “safely” is correct. Wenham believes the Hebrew literally says Jacob came “to Salem, the city of Shechem,” meaning Jacob came to the city of Salem where a man by the name of Shechem lived.⁷ The next verse as well as chapter 34 indicate that Shechem is a personal name in this context.

19 And from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, he bought for a hundred pieces of money the piece of land on which he had pitched his tent.

Jacob’s objective is not stated. It can hardly have been for the purpose of building an altar, for none of the other patriarchal altars required purchase of the ground on which it stood. More likely, he intended settling there permanently, a plan thwarted by the development related in the next chapter. Like Abraham, he may have had in mind establishing a family burial ground. This suggestion is supported by Joshua 24:32, which records that Joseph was eventually buried on this plot.⁸

20 There he erected an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel.

In calling the altar “El, the God of Israel,” Jacob acknowledges that the creator God who had changed his name at the Yabbok to Israel was now his God, and by implication his descendants’ God too. He had vowed at Bethel that if the LORD brought him back to his father’s house in peace, “the LORD will be my God” (28:21). He has yet to reach Bethel, where he will fulfill the rest of the vow, but by naming this altar he is reaffirming his allegiance to El and declaring that El is Israel’s God.⁹

Bibliography

Last updated: October 19, 2009

English Translation (ESV)

¹Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. ²And when Jacob saw them he said, “This is God’s camp!” So he called the name of that place Mahanaim.

³And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother in the land of Seir, the country of Edom, ⁴instructing them, “Thus you shall say to my lord Esau: Thus says your servant Jacob, ‘I have sojourned with Laban and stayed until now. ⁵I have oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants. I have sent to tell my lord, in order that I may find favor in your sight.’”

⁶And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, “We came to your brother Esau, and he is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him.” ⁷Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed. He divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, ⁸thinking, “If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, then the camp that is left will escape.”

⁹And Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O LORD who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you good,’ ¹⁰I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. ¹¹Please deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, that he may come and attack me, the mothers with the children. ¹²But you said, ‘I will surely do you good, and make your offspring as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.’”

¹³So he stayed there that night, and from what he had with him he took a present for his brother Esau, ¹⁴two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams, ¹⁵thirty milking camels and their calves, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys. ¹⁶These he handed over to his servants, every drove by itself, and said to his servants, “Pass on ahead of me and put a space between drove and drove.” ¹⁷He instructed the first, “When Esau my brother meets you and asks you, ‘To whom do you belong? Where are you going? And whose are these ahead of you?’ ¹⁸then you shall say, ‘They belong to your servant Jacob. They are a present sent to my lord Esau. And moreover, he is behind us.’” ¹⁹He likewise instructed the second and the third and all who followed the droves, “You shall say the same thing to Esau when you find him, ²⁰and you shall say, ‘Moreover, your servant Jacob is behind us.’” For he thought, “I may appease him with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterward I shall see his face. Perhaps he will accept me.” ²¹So the present passed on ahead of him, and he himself stayed that night in the camp.

²²The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. ²³He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. ²⁴And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. ²⁵When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. ²⁶Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” ²⁷And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” ²⁸Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” ²⁹Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. ³⁰So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” ³¹The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. ³²Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip on the sinew of the thigh.

Notes

1-2 Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And when Jacob saw them he said, “This is God’s camp!” So he called the name of that place Mahanaim.

The description of the meeting of the angelic host points us back to Jacob’s dream theophany in 28:10-12: “went/set out” (halak), “met/reached” (paga), and “the angels of God” (mal’ake elohim). This latter expression appears only in 28:12 and 32:1[2] in the whole of the Old Testament. In Jacob’s departure from Canaan and in his return, the angels of God appeared to him, suggesting their accompaniment of the patriarch during the entirety of his travels. The absence of a verbal message from the angels in chap. 32 is another facet of the account that creates perplexity in the reader. At Bethel, too, the angels do not speak, but there the Lord delivers a message (28:12-13). In the first case Jacob “reached” (paga) the sacred “place” (maqom) of Bethel (28:11), but in the “place” (maqom) of Mahanaim the angels “met” (paga) the patriarch. It was they who were scouting the area for Jacob. Although outside the land of promise, he was not outside the hand of promise. Houtman observes that the word “camp” (mahaneh) indicates a temporary, mobile settlement versus the permanency of the “house of God” (bet elohim) at Bethel. He finds the “stairway” resting on the earth in the Bethel dream conveys the same sense of a mobile residence. Are the angels Jacob’s unseen traveling companions (cf. 24:7; 48:16)?¹

Mahanaim means “two camps.”² It is located east of the Jordan on the border between the territories of the half-tribe of Manasseh and the tribe of Gad (Joshua 13:26, 30). What two camps are in mind is unclear (Jacob and Laban?, Jacob and Esau?, Jacob and the angels?). It is noteworthy that Jacob subsequently divides his camp into two camps.

3-5 And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother in the land of Seir, the country of Edom, instructing them, “Thus you shall say to my lord Esau: Thus says your servant Jacob, ‘I have sojourned with Laban and stayed until now. I have oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants. I have sent to tell my lord, in order that I may find favor in your sight.’”

It is now presupposed that Esau had migrated east of the Jordan to Seir.

The three Hebrew words se’ir, sadeh, and ‘edom are deliberately used to evoke memories of the hostile relations with Esau, the one covered with hair (se’ar), a man of the outdoors (sadeh), of ruddy complexion (‘admoni), who came in from the field (sadeh) and begged for the red stuff (‘adom), and whose hairiness (sa’ir) played a crucial role in the deception that precipitated Jacob’s flight to Laban.³

Jacob tells the messengers to use conciliatory language (lord/servant) towards the possibly still angry Esau. He tells them to say he has been with Laban the whole twenty years and that is why he has not previously contacted Esau.

6 And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, “We came to your brother Esau, and he is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him.”

Four hundred men may have been the standard size of a militia (1 Samuel 22:2; 25:13; 30:10, 17). This explains Jacob’s fear in verse 7.

7-8 Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed. He divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, thinking, “If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, then the camp that is left will escape.”

A retreat was impossible with women, children, and flocks. The best he can hope for is to spare some of his camp.

9-12 And Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O LORD who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you good,’ I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. Please deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, that he may come and attack me, the mothers with the children. But you said, ‘I will surely do you good, and make your offspring as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.’”

This invocation combines features from 28:13-15 and 31:3. “The prayer ends with a recollection of divine promises still to be redeemed. The desperate appeal is thereby grounded in God’s steadfast fealty, not in the petitioner’s merit. At the moment of crisis it is a concern with posterity that is uppermost in Jacob’s mind.”⁴

13-15 So he stayed there that night, and from what he had with him he took a present for his brother Esau, two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams, thirty milking camels and their calves, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys.

The young animals and female animals were particularly valuable since they could be used to grow the herd.

22-23 The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had.

Only the principal actors in the evolution of the nation are mentioned as Jacob is about to become Israel.

[The Jabbok] is one of the most important [rivers] east of the Jordan. Flowing through a deep ravine on a meandering course, it joins the Jordan River at right angles about 20 miles (32 km.) north of the Dead Sea. Before the construction of bridges, flat stepping-stones or timber would be laid across the shallowest and narrowest part to afford passage. To cross at night with a vast entourage is a difficult and dangerous operation, to be undertaken only by moonlight and only as a matter of great urgency. By moving from the northern to the southern side of the river, Jacob is placing himself all the more quickly in the path of Esau, who is advancing from Seir in the north. His tactic, apparently, is to reduce the interval between Esau’s encountering the gifts and his own arrival heralded by his messengers, each in turn. He can thereby better exploit the immediate psychological advantage gained form the mollifying effect of the tribute and at the same time enhance his claim actually to be on his way to meet his brother. He does not want to convey the impression that he is trying to avoid or delay a face-to-face meeting.⁵

24 And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.

In verses 28 and 30 the man is called a divine being (elohim). Hosea 12:4 identifies the man as an angel. The Hebrew word for “wrestled” is a play on both Jacob and Jabbok.⁶

25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.

Note that Jacob is ninety-seven years old at this point in the narrative. He can therefore hardly be considered a challenge to an angel in physical terms. Though there is no reason to doubt that a physical contest takes place, we cannot make the mistake of thinking that is the main point. When the text tells us that Jacob’s opponent cannot overcome him, it is not suggesting that Jacob is physically besting the man. The ease with which he inflicts physical damage on Jacob (32:25) indicates that any inability must be in the spiritual arena, not the physical one. If the wrestler is unable to overcome Jacob spiritually, it is because Jacob is not willing to yield. Only when the man threatens to go without offering assurances of God’s help does Jacob show his willingness to negotiate in the critical issues.⁷

The last element in the narrative to deal with is Jacob’s yarek (hip/thigh). The “hollow” of his yarek is “touched/struck” and as a result is “wrenched” (NIV) or, more likely, “torn” or even “ruptured.” Consequently he limps. Yarek is the same word translated “thigh” in Genesis 24:2, 9. In that context there is no mention of the “hollow” of the thigh; instead, Abraham’s servant places his hand “under” the thigh. Yarek usually refers to flesh or muscle rather than the pelvic bone. That which the Israelites do not eat (32:32) would also be meat (tendons/sinew, see Job 10:11; Ezek. 37:6; and Akkadian) rather than bone. This suggests the possibility that yarek refers to the groin area.

The word translated “hollow” (Heb. Kap) when associated with the hand or foot is usually translated palm or sole. But the fact that the kap can be cut off (Deut. 25:12; Judg. 8:15; 1 Sam. 5:4) indicates that the word refers to an entire hand or foot and generally refers to an appendage. Again, usage suggests that it is not the appendage of a bone but one of flesh. Finally, the word used in combination with the sinew to describe what the Israelites do not eat occurs only here and is indecipherable.

Whatever this part is, it is most logical that this is the part that is injured. While the “hollow/appendage of the thigh” describes the area, the “tendon of the X” specifically describes the damaged part that Israelites do not eat. It should be noted that Jacob’s injury does not necessarily create a permanent disability. The text says that in the morning he is limping – it does not say that he has a limp the rest of his life. It is therefore not a requirement that the terms we have been looking at be understood in a way that produces a debilitating injury that will not have healed over time.

What conclusions can we draw from all of this? If there were only the description of the injury, a blow to the groin area causing a rupture of the testicles would make the most sense of the language used here. But that does not fit with the description of what the Israelites do not eat. But if we are trying to figure everything out, we may a well ask why something that happens to Jacob dictates what part of an animal they can eat. Until more linguistic information comes to light that can further explain technical meanings of the terms used in these verses, the precise interpretation must remain obscure.⁸

26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

The divine assailant may want to leave before morning so that Jacob cannot see him in his entirety. That Jacob believes the man can render a blessing indicates he knows his identity to some degree.

Since this is God’s messenger, Jacob has his opportunity to obtain the blessing from God that had escaped him until now, for he had only received his father’s blessing and that was given unwittingly. The earlier narratives have implied that Jacob is already the recipient of the Lord’s blessing (30:27, 30; cf. 35:9; 48:3), but it is explicitly stated for the first time that God “blessed him” (v. 29 [30]). This experience provides Jacob (and his descendants) the confirmation of God’s blessing. The precise nature of this blessing is unstated. We may surmise that Jacob sought the power only God could provide him to overcome his enemies. The difficulty with this understanding, however, is that Jacob had already overpowered the “man,” leaving the impression that the blessing Jacob sought transcended the circumstances. He seeks from the Lord the assurance that his descendants will endure, creating the nation God had promised (28:13-14; 31:3, 13). That the blessing is or is related to the name “Israel” fits textually since the name presumes the nation that his sons will furnish.⁹

27 And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.”

In disclosing his name Jacob is doing more than sharing information. He is making a confession about the appropriateness of his name. Only now would Jacob agree with Esau that Jacob is the perfect name for him (27:36). The acknowledgement of the old name, and its unfortunate suitability, paves the way for a new name.¹⁰

28 Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

The name Israel means “God struggles/fights.”¹¹ The men Jacob prevailed over include Esau and Laban. Walton believes that by yielding to God’s blessing Jacob prevails in a spiritual sense; by relying on God one no longer needs to struggle with God.

29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him.

In Judges 13:17-18, the angel also refuses to give his name. The question, “Why is it that you ask my name,” seems to be a way of saying, “Don’t you realize who I am?” After the disappearance of the divine being, the protagonists in both stories realize the true identity of the visitor.

30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”

Peniel means “Face of God.”¹² It may be identified with Tulul adh-Dhahab, on the Jabbok a few miles from where it flows into the Jordan.¹³ Since it was night, Jacob’s statement about seeing God face to face is not meant literally, rather it means he had a direct, non-mediated encounter with God.¹⁴

When Jacob adds now my life has been preserved, he does not mean that he is happily surprised that he has seen God and is still alive. Jacob is not saying: “By all logical considerations, I should be dead by now.” It is true that God says that “a man shall not see me and live” (Exod. 33:20) (a concept that admits exceptions throughout the OT), but that is hardly Jacob’s concern. Such an interpretation misses the thrust of the double use of the root nsl in this chapter. Earlier Jacob had prayed “Preserve me [hassileni] from my brother” (v. 12). Now he says: my life has been preserved (wattinnasel). In other words, Jacob’s recognition that none other than God himself stands before him gives to Jacob the assurance that Esau shall not destroy him. Jacob’s earlier prayer for deliverance is now answered by God in this encounter. Jacob shall be “preserved” from Esau, for God has “preserved” him. In this verse Jacob moves, in his own words, from a proclamation of revelation (“I have seen God face-to-face”) to a statement of testimony (“and yet my life has been preserved”), that is, he shifts from awe to relief.¹⁵

31 The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip.

The sun rises after the assailant is gone, meaning it was not the sun that allowed Jacob to identify the assailant.

32 Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip on the sinew of the thigh.

Jewish tradition identifies “the sinew of the thigh” with the sciatic nerve.¹⁶ “By refraining from eating this sinew, the Israelites were constantly reminded of Jacob’s meeting with God and the promise of ultimate victory and blessing he wrung from God then.”¹⁷

Bibliography